part 1 summary of round 2 public engagement process report · 2020-05-25 · Summary of Round 2...

Prepared by:

AECOM 99 Commerce Drive 204 477 5381 tel Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3P 0Y7 204 284 2040 fax www.aecom.com Project Number:

60304444 Date:

September 1, 2015

Environment

Manitoba Hydro

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project Summary of Round 2 Public Engagement Process

AECOM Manitoba Hydro


AECOM: 2012-01-06 © 2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Manitoba_Minnesota_Transmission_Project_Summary_Of_Round_2_Public_Engagement_Process_September2015.Docx

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period

and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and In the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on

the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except: (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.



Manitoba_Minnesota_Transmission_Project_Summary_Of_Round_2_Public_Engagement_Process_September2015.Docx ES-1

Executive Summary

A. Manitoba Minnesota Transmission Project, Round 2

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (MMTP) involves environmental assessment of a major 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line in southern Manitoba.

The MMTP will include construction of a 500 kV alternating current (AC) transmission line, and upgrades to Manitoba Hydro’s Dorsey, Riel, and Glenboro Converter Stations. Originating at the Dorsey Converter Station northwest of Winnipeg, the transmission line will follow a dedicated transmission corridor with multiple transmission lines, around Winnipeg, reducing the number of separate rights-of-way. The new transmission line will then run southeast to a border crossing on the Manitoba-Minnesota border, and connect to the Great Northern Transmission Line constructed by Minnesota Power, terminating at Iron Range Station located northwest of Duluth, Minnesota.

Anticipated in-service date for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project is 2020.

B. Purpose of Round 2 Public Engagement Process

The purpose of the MMTP Public Engagement Process (PEP) has been to assist the environmental assessment and routing work being undertaken by Manitoba Hydro and its consultants.

During Round 1 of the MMTP PEP, three (3) Alternative Border Crossing Areas and 59 Alternative Route Segments linking them to Dorsey Station were assessed by a panel of Manitoba Hydro and consultant specialists. Based on feedback from the engagement and environmental assessment processes and using a process based on the EPRI-GTC methodology, the alternatives were refined to provide a limited number of routing alternatives to the second of the three border crossing areas.

The purpose of the Round 2 PEP was to provide the discipline specialists with public feedback that assisted in further identification of Valued Components, as well as to receive information on the potential effects of MMTP Alternative Route Segments, including related concerns, preferences, constraints, and mitigation recommendations from a broad cross-section of Stakeholder Groups, local landowners and members of the public to assist the environmental assessment and transmission line routing. Stakeholder Groups included provincial government departments, municipalities and specific interest groups, as well as landowners.

Valued Components are components of the natural and human environment considered by the proponent, public, First Nations groups, Metis, scientists and other technical specialists and government agencies involved in the assessment process to have scientific, ecological, economic, social, cultural, archaeological, historical, or other importance.

C. Report

Section Two (2) to Four (4) of this report describes Round 2 of the PEP, including the approaches used to engage Stakeholder Groups and members of the public, numbers of participants involved, and feedback obtained.

Between the tabulation of data from various engagement mechanisms and the presentation of concerns and preferences related to the environmental assessment, AECOM developed a uniform coding protocol for all PEP data, which is described in Section 5 of the Report.




Transmission line routing and environmental assessment considerations are dealt with in Section 6 and Section 7, respectively. Section 8 of this Report identifies issues to be addressed in the next round (Round 3) of public engagement.

D. Public Engagement Results

Public engagement feedback from Stakeholder Groups, landowners and members of the public was collected through:

1. Information recorded at Stakeholder Group Meetings. 2. Completed Comment Sheets from Public Open House events. 3. Completed Comment Sheets in digital format based on information on the Manitoba Hydro

Website. 4. Map Station inputs at Public Open Houses. 5. Records of email and telephone communications.

Information was tabulated by specific Alternative Route Segments wherever possible.

Public engagement feedback will inform both the selection process for determining a Preferred Route and the evaluation of Valued Components related to the environmental assessment process.

D.1 Round 2 Notifications of Engagement Opportunities

Newspaper advertising, newsletters, postcards, telephone calls and the Manitoba Hydro website were used to provide the public with information about the Project. Emails and telephone calls were also employed to contact potential Stakeholder Groups. The following table summarizes types and numbers of notifications.

Table D1: Notification of Public Engagement Opportunities

Type of Notification

Number of Items/ Contacts

Source Notes

Email and Telephone Notifications (Stakeholder Groups)

172 AECOM Stakeholder Groups were contacted to notify them of the Round 2 PEP, including opportunities to attend POHs or schedule meetings. In all, 82 were provided with opportunity to contact Manitoba Hydro to schedule a meeting, 51 received meeting request from Manitoba Hydro (based on past preferences), 4 received updates related to the Glenboro Expansion and 5 letters were sent to conservation offices.

Telephone Notification (Landowners)

96 Manitoba Hydro Calls made to all past POH participants that provided their contact information for future Project related updates.

Postcard 26,320 Manitoba Hydro Informing the public about POH Events.

Newspaper Ad - Published

13 Manitoba Hydro Typically advertising started two weeks in advance of POH Events, and often continued in at least one additional issue.

Poster 109 Manitoba Hydro POH Notifications in 17 different communities.




Type of Notification

Number of Items/ Contacts

Source Notes

Letter Notification (Landowners)

9514 Manitoba Hydro Included 1,582 letters to residents in the area of Ste. Genevieve.

Email Campaigns 7 Manitoba Hydro Email Campaign notifications were sent out by Manitoba Hydro throughout Round 2, the emails provided updates regarding the project. The notifications were sent to all people that signed up on the Manitoba Hydro website or at open houses. Notification went to over 400 email addresses provided for future notification regarding the Project.

D.2 Round 2 Engagement Opportunities

The Round 2 PEP incorporated a range of different engagement opportunities, and ultimately obtained feedback from over 1,000 participants. The following table summarizes PEP events and participation.

Table D2: Involvement in Public Engagement Program Events for MMTP Round 2

Engagement Strategy

Number of

Events

Timing Number of

Participants Notes

Stakeholder Group Meetings Scheduled

25 April to September 2014

115+ Included Provincial Depts., municipalities and various interest groups and landowners.

Public Open Houses 11 April 2014 to June 2014

658

Email and Telephone Communications

April 2014 to October 2014

317 Including 211 email correspondences and 106 telephone conversations between members of the public and Manitoba Hydro staff.

TOTAL 36 1090+

Sections 2 to Section 4 of this report provide details about each of the approaches used to obtain Stakeholder Groups and public feedback. The following items summarize the key processes.

E. Public Engagement Process for MMTP Round 2

Sections 2 to 4 of this Report provide descriptions of the four main components of the PEP: Stakeholder Group Meetings, POH events, email and telephone communications, and the project website. AECOM worked closely with Manitoba Hydro Licensing & Environmental Assessment Department staff to develop the PEP for Round 2 of the MMTP.

F. Stakeholder Groups Meetings

To share project information and to gather feedback from interested organizations and individuals, Manitoba Hydro held Stakeholder Group Meetings at their offices, various municipal offices and other venues made accessible to the public. At each of these meetings Manitoba Hydro:

Introduced Round 2 of the MMTP, including the Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing Area.

Shared project timelines. Shared information regarding the PEP and environmental assessment process.




Outlined the Transmission Line Routing Process, and ways that groups could become involved in identifying a Preferred Route and shared transmission line routing criteria for consideration and feedback.

Responded to Stakeholder Group questions, and discussed concerns/opportunities with regards to the Alternative Routes.

Information related to specific environmental considerations, as well as concerns and preferences related to specific Alternative Route Segments were received at Stakeholder Group Meetings.

The Master Stakeholder List of contacts from Round 1 of the MMTP PEP indicated that 66 Stakeholder Groups wanted to be informed of future meetings via email, while 61 Stakeholder Groups only wanted to receive future information about the Project. A total of 25 Stakeholder Group Meetings were held between approximately April 1, 2014 and September 10, 2014, some involving multiple Stakeholder Groups. Six additional Stakeholder Groups or individual landowners were later identified, as well as three others related to the Glenboro Station expansion.

G. Public Open House Events

Project information was shared with attendees at 11 Public POH events in communities from Headingly to Piney between early April and mid-June 2014.

Public feedback was obtained through Comment Sheets and Map entries, as well as one-on-one discussions with participants.

At each POH event, Manitoba Hydro:

Presented project information in storyboards, and discussion with participants. Identified the Alternative Routes and the Preferred Border Crossing area. Obtained input related to Valued Components through the Comment Sheets. Determined concerns and preferences related to Alternative Route Segments through

discussions with participants, feedback received in Comment Sheets, and from maps and Landowner Information Forms.

Determined specific sites of interest or concern through feedback from Comment Sheets and Map Stations.

Discussed recommendations for minimizing potential negative effects or enhancing positive effects through discussion with participants and feedback from Comment Sheets.

Provided participants with Information Sheets related to a range of issues around transmission lines including: transmission line tower design, health and Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF); maps, and other information such as the Transmission Line Routing Process.

Information received from the POH Comment Sheets and Map Logs were utilized to identify public concerns and preferences related to general routing, and specific site constraints along each of the Alternative Route Segments.

POH participants were encouraged to complete Comment Sheets and drop them off at the POH events, or complete them online. Comment Sheets and Open House presentation material were also available on the MMTP website.

A total of 442 Comment Sheets were returned to Manitoba Hydro, including 235 received online.

A total of 22 Landowner Information Forms were also completed.




H. Email and Telephone Communications

Manitoba Hydro contacted (or contacted by) people who were involved in various Public Engagement forums and responded to their questions and concerns. Information sheets related to transmission line tower design and EMF; maps, and other information were sent out to individuals based on their specific interests and concerns.

Email and telephone communications helped Manitoba Hydro engage individuals, address their concerns, and provide information clarifying the intent of the project, potential impacts and approaches to mitigation. This was particularly useful to those who were unable to meet with Manitoba Hydro staff in person.

I. Project Website

The Project’s website (www.hydro.mb.ca/mmtp) provided information to assist interested parties in understanding the Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing Area under consideration in Round 2 of the MMTP process. GIS files and mapping and POH materials were available in the document library.

As noted above, a significant number of respondents (235) completed Comment Sheets online. Results for this component of the PEP are found in Section 3.

J. Identification of Valued Components

Valued Components (VC) were initially organized by the PEP Team into five natural environment categories, seven human environment categories, and four resource categories. The Human Environment and Resource VC categories both address Socio-economic considerations. These were included in the POH Comment Sheets, with space for identification of additional VCs. For ease of comparison, all of the concerns and preferences obtained through the different PEP processes were organized according to these categories (see Table K1).

K. Summary of Concerns and Preferences Considering Valued Components

The following table, (Table K1) shows the frequency of mention of the Valued Components (VC) relative to all Alternative Route Segments, by PEP engagement method. Data on Concerns and Preferences was obtained from the summaries of Stakeholder Group Meetings, POH Comment Sheets and Mapping, and Email and Telephone Communications, as well as Website responses. The table indicates which VCs were common to most segments, versus VC specific to only a limited number of segments. All values are based on a maximum of 12 (for Alternative Route Segments 200 to 211), with asterisks indicating General Comments not attributed to a particular segment.

Note that Table K1 differs from later environmental assessment (EA) summaries, which employ the environmental assessment Data Coding system.

The most frequently mentioned VCs were: first, Property and Residential Development; second, Public Safety and Human Health, and Vegetation and Wetlands (both ranked second in frequency), and third, Wildlife.

This information is graphed in Figure K1. Note that the summary is not route specific and only addresses overall numbers of Concerns and Preferences according to sources of Stakeholder Groups and public feedback. The figure does indicate the most frequently mentioned VC relative to all routes.




Table K1: Valued Components – Frequency of Mention

Rank Valued Component (VC)

Number of Segments Referenced by Feedback Method (12 Segments Total)

Stakeholder Group Meetings POH Comment Sheets POH Maps Email and Telephone

Concern Preference Concern Preference Concern Preference Preference Preference

Natural Environment VC A. Atmospheric

Resources 0 0 0 0 4* 0 1 0

B. Groundwater Resources

0 0 4 1 1 0 1 0

C. Fish; Fish Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 D. Wildlife (Birds,

Mammals, Reptiles) 4 2 7 2 10* 0 7 0

3 E. Vegetation and Wetlands

5 3 8 3 7* 4 6 1

Human Environment VCs 2 F. Public Safety and

Human Health 2 0 9 4 11* 1 11 2

G. Aesthetics 2 1 6 4 9 0 5 1 1 H. Property and

Residential Development

7* 1 11 8 12* 5 11 2

I. Recreation and Tourism

1 1 3 2 6 1 2 0

J. Agricultural Land Use

2* 0 5 4 5* 4 5 1

K. Livestock Operations

2 0 4 2 4 0 0 0

L. Infrastructure and Services (Lagoons, Roads, Landfills)

6 2 3 1 8* 0 6 2

Resource VC M. Hunting, Trapping

and Fishing 2 0 3 1 2 1 1 0




Rank Valued Component (VC)

Number of Segments Referenced by Feedback Method (12 Segments Total)

Stakeholder Group Meetings POH Comment Sheets POH Maps Email and Telephone

Concern Preference Concern Preference Concern Preference Preference Preference N. Traditional Land

and Resource Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

O. Heritage Resources (e.g. Archaeological)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

P. Resource Use (Forestry, Mining andAggregate Extraction

1* 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

Additional - Engineering and Cost VC Q. Cost 2* 0 3 2 2* 2 0 0 R. Existing/Multiple

Lines 0 0 4 2 5 0 0 0

S. Locate along Existing Transmission ROW

1 0 3 2 0 4 0 0

T. Alternative Route/ Border Crossing

0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0

U. Sales/Other 0 0 2 7 2 7 1 0 V. General 0 0 2 7 2 7 1 1

* All values are based on a maximum of 12 (for Alternative Route Segments 200 to 211), with asterisks indicating General Comments not attributed to a particular segment.

M

A

Manitoba_Minnesota_Transmissio

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fre

qu

ency

of

Men

tio

n

AECOM

on_Project_Summary_Of_Round_22_Public_Engagement_Process_S

Figure K

Manitoba Hydro

September2015.Docx

K1: Summary of

Valued Comp

o

f Public Engage

ponent

ManitoSumma

ment Process R

oba-Minnesota Transmisary of Round 2 Public E

Results

sion Project ngagement Process

Email Prefer

POH M

POH CPrefer

StakehPrefer

Email Conce

POH M

POH CConce

StakehConce

ES-8

and Telephonerencs

Map Preferences

Comment Sheetrences

holder Meetingrences

and Telephoneerns

Map Concerns

Comment Sheeterns

holder Meetingerns




L. EA Data Coding

AECOM classified the combined data from Stakeholder Group Meetings, POH and email and telephone communications, as well as Website data, into three Categories specifically identified for use in the environmental assessment. This is described further in Section 7. The pie chart below, (Figure L1) indicates the combined frequency of all Concerns and Preferences occurring in the three key Categories used in the EA Data Coding: Natural Environment, Built Environment and Social Environment.

Figure L1: Public Feedback by Environmental Assessment Data Category

Many of the sub-categories used in the Built Environment and Social Environment Categories were combined as Socio-economic considerations. Together, these represented almost three-quarters of all EA Data responses. The breakdown of categories included in the Environmental Assessment (EA) Data Coding categories is included in Table L1 included:

Natural18%

Built52%

Social30%

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

Figure L2

As the piefactors.

ta_Transmission_Project_

identifies the

Figure

e chart indica

M

_Summary_Of_Round_2_P

Table L1

EA Dat

Built

Natural

Social

e frequency of

L2: Breakdo

ates, nearly 7

Manitoba Hydro

Public_Engagement_Proce

1: Public Fee

ta Category

f mention of C

wn of Issues

75% of all co

PhysicEnvironm

4%

Socio-E7

ess_September2015.Docx

edback by EA

Topics Wit

Traditiona

Heritage R

Infrastruct

Property a

Non-Agric

Livestock

Access

Physical E

Aquatics

Wildlife

Vegetation

Environme

Employme

Resource

Health

Aesthetics

Safety

Noise

Property V

Recreation

Concerns and

s Related to

oncerns and p

cal ment

Aq

W

Economic73%

MS

x

A Data Categ

thin Category

al Land Use

Resources

ture and Servic

and Residentia

cultural Land Us

Operations

Environment

n

ent

ent and Econom

Use

s

Value

n and Tourism

d Preferences

Environmen

preferences w

uatics2%

Wildlife9%

Veg

T

Manitoba-MinnesotSummary of Round

gory

ces

al

se

my

s in the overa

ntal Assessm

were related

getation6%

Environment4%

Traditional Land Use

0%

Heritage Resources

2%

ta Transmission Prd 2 Public Engagem

ES-10

ll PEP databa

ment

to socio-econ

roject ment Process

ase.

nomic




M. Transmission Line Routing

For Round 2 of MMTP, Manitoba Hydro developed 12 Alternative Route Segments leading to a Preferred Border Crossing Area on the Manitoba-Minnesota border, considering Built Environment, Natural Environment, and Engineering features. The Alternative Route Segments and Preferred Border Crossing Area were based on the results of the MMTP Round 1 Transmission Line Routing Selection process.

Stakeholder Groups and members of the public were encouraged to participate in the Round 2 Public Engagement Process in order to provide further input regarding appropriate Valued Components, criteria for transmission line routing, concerns and preferences, and potential mitigation approaches related to the Alternative Route Segments. This will help to define a Preferred Route for the new transmission line, and to confirm the Preferred Border Crossing location.

M.1 Descriptions of Alternative Route Segments

Figure M1 illustrates the 12 Alternative Routes presented during Round 2 of the PEP. As well, Table M1 describes the 12 Alternative Route Segments identified at the end of Round 1 for evaluation as part of the Round 2 Public Engagement Process.

The column on the right side of the table identifies corresponding Alternative Route Segments from Round 1, as well as those Alternative Route Segments developed to address specific concerns with Round 1 segments, called Round 1 Evaluation Alternative Segments.

XW

XW

[\59

[\59

[\3

³²1

City of Winnipeg

St. Malo

Riel

Jou bert Creek

Rose

au River

United States of America

Red

River

WHITEMOUTHLAKE

Canada

ManningCanal

Assiniboine River Cooks Creek

Seine River

Rat River

[\15

[\27

[\75

[\52

[\44

[\89

[\67

[\14

[\12

[\30

[\11

[\44

[\12

[\12[\26

[\11

[\2UV100

UV101

M602F

R50M

R49R

Birds HillProvincial

Park

WhiteshellProvincial

Park

BeaudryProvincial

Park

³²1

Dorsey

Altona

Anola

Arbakka

Arnaud

Aubigny

Badger

Barkfield

Beausejour

Brunkild

Caliento

Carey

CarlowrieCarrick

Cloverleaf

DeaconsCorner

Domain

Dufresne

Dufrost

Dugald

EastBraintree

Elma

Emerson

Fredensthal

Gardenton

Giroux

Glass

Glenlea

GrandePointe

Greenland

GreenRidge

Gretna

Grosse Isle

Hadashville

Hazelridge

Headingley

Horndean

Ile desChênes

KleefeldLa Broquerie

La CouléeLa Salle

Letellier

Linden

Lorette

LoweFarm

Marchand

McMunn

Molson

Morris

NewBothwell

Niverville

Oakbank

Oak Bluff

Osborne

Piney

PrairieGrove

Prawda

Randolph

Rennie

Richer

Ridgeville

Roseau River

Ross

Rosser

St. Adolphe

Ste. Agathe

Ste.Elizabeth

Ste-Geneviève

Ste. Rita

St. Joseph

St.Labre

St-Pierre-Jolys

Sandilands

Sanford

Sarto

SeddonsCorner

SouthJunction Sprague

Starbuck

Steinbach

StonyMountain

StuartburnSundown

Tolstoi

VassarVita

Vivian

Whitemouth

Woodridge

Roseau RiverAnishinabeFirst Nation

Ste. Anne

Ginew

Stonewall Selkirk

Zhoda

Grunthal

204

202

210

203

210

211

206

209

205

201

207

208

200

0 5 10 Kilometres

0 105 Miles 1:500,000

±Coordinate System: UTM Zone 14N NAD83Data Source: MBHydro, ProvMB, NRCANDate Created: July 14, 2015

Manitoba-MinnesotaTransmission Project

G:\_G

IS_P

rojec

t_Fold

er\00

_Hyd

ro\11

1420

050_

MMTP

_EA\

Figur

es\Te

chnic

alRep

orts\P

ublic

Enga

geme

nt\MM

TP_T

ECHR

EP_R

ound

2Alte

rnateR

outes

_500

K_B_

2015

0708

.mxd

Project Infrastructure

XW Converter Station (Existing)

Round 2 Alternative Route and Segment Number

Round 2 Alternative Routes

Infrastructure! ! ! Existing 500kV Transmission Line! ! ! Existing 230kV Transmission Line

Assessment AreaRoute Planning Area

Landbase! Community

RailwayTrans CanadaProvincial HighwayProvincial RoadCityFirst Nation LandsEcological ReserveWildlife Management AreaProvincial Park

³²1

[\12

UV301

Map 1-1

200




Table M1: Round 2 Route Segments Summary

Round 2 Route

Segment Segment Description

Corresponding Round 1 Route

Segment(s)

200 Starts near the Dorsey Converter Station; continues to the La Verendrye Station, then extends south around the City of Winnipeg, adjacent to the Floodway. Segment 200 ends south of the Riel Converter Station and connects to Segments 201 and 205.

1

201 Begins south of the Riel Converter Station and continues east, while remaining parallel to the D602F Transmission Line through the RM of Springfield. South of Anola, Segment 201 swings south to terminate in the RM of Tache, where it connects with Segments 202 and 203.

5, 6

202 Connects Segments 201 and 204. All of Segment 202 is located within the RM of Tache. Segment 202 is partially adjacent to an existing 230kV transmission line, but separates from this existing alignment upon crossing PR 501. Segment 202 was developed and presented to the public during Round 2 PEP, based on a review of the feedback collected during Round 1.

Round 1 Mitigative Segment

203 Connects Segments 201 and 204. All of Segment 203 is located within the RM of Tache, east of the intersection of PTH12 and PR501. This alternative segment was also developed and presented to the public during Round 2 PEP, based on a review of the feedback collected during Round 1.


204 Located within the RM of Tache, east of the existing 230kV line, this Alternative Route Segment was developed and presented to the public during Round 2 PEP, based on a review of the feedback collected during Round 1.


205 Near the southeast corner of Winnipeg and runs southeast through the RM of Ritchot and RM of Tache along portions of the Trans-Canada Highway. Segment 205 connects to Segment 206 northeast of the communities of Ste. Anne and La Coulee.

40, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50

206 In the southern portion of the RM of Tache, running southeast through the RM of Ste. Anne and terminating south of Richer. This segment was presented during Round 1 PEP. There are no routing alternatives to Segment 206.

50

207 Running southeast around the Watson P. Davidson Wildlife Management Area, west of Sandilands, Alternative Route Segment 207 is located within the RMs of Ste. Anne, La Broquerie, Piney and Stuartburn. The northern portion of the segment was developed and presented to the public during Round 2 PEP, based on a review of the feedback collected during Round 1. Parts of the southern portion of Segment 207 were presented during the Round 1 PEP.

30

208 Running southwest of the Watson P. Davidson Wildlife Management Area, this alternative segment located within the RMs of Ste. Anne, La Broquerie and Stuartburn and was presented during Round 1.

50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 34

209 Running diagonally from southeast of the Watson P. Davidson Wildlife Management Area, to an area southwest of the Spur Woods Wildlife Management Area. Segment 209 is located within the RMs of Stuartburn and Piney. The segment was presented during Round 1 PEP. There are no routing alternatives.

34

210 Located in the RM of Piney, and terminating at the Preferred Border Crossing, west of PTH 89, this alternative segment runs parallel to the Spur Woods Management Area, and then south towards the border. Alternative Route Segment 210 was developed and presented to the public during Round 2 PEP, based on a review of the feedback collected during Round 1.


211 Running diagonally southeast to the Preferred Border Crossing in the RM of Piney, this alternative segment was presented during Round 1 PEP.

34

A number of Evaluative Route Segments were proposed to address specific concerns with the original 12 Alternative Route Segments described above. These are noted below in Table M2.




Table M2: Proposed Route Modifications Brought Forward For Round 2 Route Evaluations from Public Engagement Specialists

Round 2 Proposed

Route Modifications

Public Feedback Concerns, & Routing Recommendations

Proposed Mitigative Route(s) Comments

Proposed Mitigative

Segment(s)

205 Proximity to homes near the Trans-Canada Highway (north of Lorette).

A proposed Evaluative Alternative would be to avoid crossing over the Trans-Canada Highway and homes in the area near PTH 206.

358

202/203 Proximity to homes: residents were concerned about lack of notification for proposed route changes, especially because of the close proximity to homes.

Multiple Evaluative Alternatives are proposed, which would avoid existing residences and remain near 202 and 203, or be more easterly than 202 and 203. Some segments are near existing alternatives and the remainder are east of PR 302.

302, 303, 308, 331, 332, 333, 334, 337, 341, 344, 343, 348, 349, 363.

209 A local cemetery was identified along this segment, which is visited on a regular basis by community members; concerns identified in Round 2 PEP.

A proposed Evaluative Alternatives is located slightly farther from the cemetery located along 402nd Road (north of Sundown).

311

210/211 Potential effects on an airport at the Canada-US International border. Route may affect proposed expansion.

Proposed Evaluative Alternatives have been added east of PTH 89, within the overall proposed border crossing area, to avoid airport expansion plans and meet the needs of Minnesota Power. These segments would connect with an Alternative Border Crossing location, which was not identified during Round 2, although similar options were presented during Round 1 (Segment 32).

315, 316, 320-329, 367, 399

A detailed map of the Alternative Route Segments and Preferred Border Crossing can be found in Appendix F.

N. Summary of Results for Transmission Line Routing

Figure N1 (Combined Preferences and Concerns by Alternative Route Segment) provides cumulative numbers of Concerns and Preferences obtained throughout the PEP from all data sources, comparing each Alternative Route Segment to all others. The height of each bar indicates the total number of responses from Stakeholder Groups and public engagement activities. The figure also shows the relative numbers of Concerns versus Preferences, represented by the green and red portions of the bars, respectively. For example, Alternative Route Segments 207 and 208 both have high levels of Stakeholder Groups and public responses, but Segment 208 has a significantly higher number of Concerns than Preferences, while Segment 207 has the reverse.

PEP data was looked at from the perspectives of both Valued Components and EA data categories. The results are consistent for most Alternative Route Segments.

Section 6 presents a summary of data from the PEP, in both written and graphic form, addressing each of the Alternative Route Segments. A summary bar chart is provided, which separately indicates the Concerns and Preferences for each segment. Four separate bar charts allow for independent review of Preferences and Concerns in the Natural, Built and Social Categories, as well as a combination of all




three. This provides an “at-a-glance” comparison of the segments. The best Alternative Route Segments in each Category were identified but the categories were not weighted relative to one another.

Figure N1: Combined Preferences and Concerns by Alternative Route Segment

O. Summary of Results for Environmental Assessment

In Section 7 the relative numbers of Concerns and Preferences are presented first by Environmental assessment Categories, and then by sub-categories, representing more detailed information for each of the Alternative Route Segments. This allows an overview comparison of the segments. Other bar charts provide additional information regarding the breakdown of Socio-economic topics.

O.1 Socio-economic Benefits and Costs

As noted, Socio-economic Concerns and Preferences far outweighed others in the feedback obtained, particularly from municipalities, landowners and public participants attending the Stakeholder Group Meetings and POH events, or responding on the Manitoba Hydro website. The summary of data relating to the environmental assessment recognizes this with detailed charts related to a range of socio-economic variables.

Figure O1 illustrates the frequency of responses by PEP Stakeholder Groups and public informants relative to various socio-economic considerations based on the EA Data Analysis described in Section 5.

Property and Residential Development (31%), was the most frequently used sub-category, followed by Infrastructure and Services (11%); Property Value (10%), and Health (9%). Note that in the Valued Components analysis of PEP information the Property and Residential VC included “Property Value” and “Access” (totaling approximately 45% of the results) and the Public Safety and Human Health VC included “Safety” and “Health” (totaling approximately 12%).

628

61 67

23

107

19 22

105

26 16 70

44

21 9

4

32

7

76

23

311

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Total Feedback

Segment Number

Route Preference

Route Concern

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

Key socio

G P S M

Concerns

P R Im Im Im S Im A Im Im N


Figure O

o-economic be

Greater powerotential beneome improve

Mitigation of fo

s included:

hysical disrupRelocation of hmpacts on prompacts on heampacts on futuafety conside

mpacts on agrAesthetic concmpacts on livempacts on hunNoise concern

M


1: Relative F

enefits recogn

r reliability andfits of power

ed recreationaorest fires due

ption and reduhouses. operty valuesalth, such as ure land deveerations, incluricultural landcerns. estock operatnting. s.

Manitoba Hydro


Frequency of

nized by Stak

d security. sales in main

al opportunitiee to creation o

uced property

. perceptions a

elopment. uding security d uses, includ

tions, bio-secu


f Various Soc

keholder Grou

ntaining low Hes related to tof cleared zon

y values.

about EMF ca

issues resulting aerial spr

urity and tingl

MS

x

cio-economi

ups and the p

Hydro rates. trails. nes.

ausing increa

ting from increraying and los

le voltage.


ic Considera

public participa

ased health ris

eased accessss of productiv


ES-16

ations

ants were:

sks.

s. ve farmland.

roject ment Process




O.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Environmental impacts identified by the participants in the PEP included:

Impacts on natural environment, including riparian and wetland habitats. Impacts on wildlife in general and endangered species in particular impact of access for ATV use

and hunting on wilderness areas. Noxious weed impacts.

Mitigation recommendations typically started with avoidance. Other approaches included:

Compensation for loss of forest. Modification of construction schedule to avoid sensitive stages of wildlife and biota.

P. Issues Identification for Round 3 of MMTP

Manitoba Hydro provided a number of different information handouts at the Public Open Houses and Stakeholder Groups Meetings, which addressed Stakeholder Groups and public concerns about a range of issues, including health, EMF and property issues.

Despite the availability of such resource materials, some POH participants indicated on Comment Sheets that information they received from PEP facilitators was inconsistent, and/or did not fully address specific questions or concerns.

The following Table P1 summarizes Stakeholder Group and public issues outlined in Section 8, which should be addressed fully and consistently in the Round 3 PEP. Key information for some of these issues already exists, as is demonstrated in the list of handouts and resource materials in Section 3, and is identified in the table. The Issues are organized according to the frequency of Concerns and Preferences from the most frequent to the least.




Table P1: Issues Identified Related to Alternative Route Segments

Item Key Issues from Round 2 Related Handouts and Resource Materials

(If Applicable) Manitoba Hydro Response

1 Atmospheric Resources 1.1 Concerns about interference with

radio, TV, internet and cellphone devices, and GPS.

AC Lines and Electronic Devices – Prepared by Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting, this provided information on EMF interference with electronic devices, including GPS, wireless internet and signal blocking/reflection.

Towers in agricultural areas are self-supporting towers in order to eliminate the hazard guyed wires could create for agricultural producers. Manitoba Hydro routes along half-mile (quarter-section) alignments, when possible, to lessen potential impacts on individual producers.

Radio noise from an AC transmission line will not directly affect GPS receivers used for agricultural or other operations from receiving GPS signals or the satellite- or antenna- based correction signals.

1.2 Concerns about noise, dust and air quality issues related to construction of a new transmission line.

Line noise is typically perceived in close proximity to the towers. Manitoba Hydro seeks to avoid development in close proximity to residences where possible. Manitoba Hydro abides by guidelines set forth by the province related to noise. Construction operations follow best practices for mitigation of noise and dust. Construction traffic routes and any detours will be identified and made available to local police, fire and emergency services.

2 Groundwater Resources 2.1 Concerns about aquifer pollution

related to construction of towers and herbicide use.

Transmission Right of Way Tree Clearing and Maintenance – This handout provided an overview of the process Manitoba Hydro uses when managing vegetation near transmission power lines, including tree removal, safety and herbicide application.

Manitoba Hydro does not use herbicides for right-of-way clearing. For right-of-way maintenance, an Integrated Vegetation Management Program will be developed to reduce the amount of herbicide required.

3 Fish and Fish Habitat 3.1 Concerns about disruption from tower

construction and pollution from herbicide use.


Vegetation buffer zones are established at watercourse crossing areas to protect fish habitats in riparian zones of streams and rivers. For right-of-way maintenance, an Integrated Vegetation Management Program will be developed to reduce the amount of herbicide required.






4 Wildlife (Birds, Mammals and Reptiles) 4.1 Reduction in habitat; disruption related

to fragmentation of habitat, including potential impact on wildlife (birds, mammals and reptiles).

The Environmental Assessment process identifies potential sensitivities and has recommended appropriate mitigation measures for various species. Field studies conducted as part of the assessment, including private lands when permitted, are used to locate species and assess potential effects. Field studies included winter track surveys, trail cameras, elk breeding surveys and bear bait monitoring.

5 Vegetation and Wetlands 5.1 Impacts to riparian habitat from

stream crossings. Vegetation buffer zones are established at watercourse

crossing areas to protect fish habitats in riparian zones of streams and rivers.

5.2 Potential impact on endangered plant species and natural areas.

Environmental characterization conducted as part of the environmental assessment process identifies potential environmental sensitivities and prescribes appropriate mitigation measures.

5.3 Transmission lines in proximity to Wildlife Management Areas, Ecological Reserves and Protected Areas, or proposed Reserves and Protected Areas

Transmission Right of Way Tree Clearing and Maintenance

Manitoba Hydro has consulted with provincial agencies and NGOs such as Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative, Parks and Protected Areas and the Nature Conservancy regarding existing and proposed ecological reserves. Electric power transmission infrastructure is not permitted in WMAs or Protected Areas, and is recommended to be 1.6 kilometres (one mile) away from their boundaries. Transmission line routing has also minimized impacts to areas with identified rare species habitat.






6 Public Safety and Human Health 6.1 Perceived health effects due electric

and magnetic fields (EMF). Electric and Magnetic Fields – It’s Your Health: Information brochure prepared by Health Canada which summarizes EMF and existing literature on the subject which supports Health Canada’s understanding of the topic. Alternating Current - Electric Magnetic Fields: Brochure created for Manitoba Hydro by epidemiologists and biological scientists to provide a summary response to common questions related to EMF exposure from AC transmission lines.

Informational sources, including Health Canada, the World Health Organization and other international health entities state that no scientific evidence suggests that exposure to EMF will cause any negative health effects on humans, vegetation and wild or domestic animals. Manitoba Hydro will design and maintain exposure levels from the transmission lines within the guidelines set forth by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection which have been adopted by the World Health Organization and Health Canada. Manitoba Hydro also retained experts in this field and has undertaken modeling and assisted in the development of material to assist in the assessment and to share information with the public regarding EMF.

7 Aesthetics 7.1 Aesthetics of towers. Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Round 2 –

Preferred Border Crossing and Refined Alternative Routes: This newsletter was prepared and distributed to all attendees of POHs, and included the project timeline, tower design, a map of Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing, and a summary of the general comments and concerns heard to date from Stakeholder Groups and the public.

Where new transmission lines are placed adjacent to existing line, Manitoba Hydro attempts to construct towers with similar spacing and heights when possible. Installation underground is cost prohibitive for high voltage lines and is therefore not a feasible option for the Project.

8 Property & Residential Development 8.1 Proximity of transmission lines to

cities, towns, villages and rural residential development, as well as agro-industrial development.

Locations of urban centres and rural residential areas are a major consideration in refining routes and avoided where possible.

8.2 Reduced property values due to transmission line development, including construction.

The Environmental Assessment has assessed potential for impact on property values. Current research suggests that property values will not be impacted by the presence of the transmission line. A Land Compensation Policy has been developed for land required for the transmission line right-of-way. The policy offers landowners 150% of the current market value for the easement and additional structure payments for agricultural lands.






8.3 Proximity to individual residences and farmsteads.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project Landowner Compensation Information – This handout summarized the four types of compensation available to landowners by Manitoba Hydro (land, construction damage, structure impact and ancillary damage compensation).

Throughout the transmission line routing process, transmission line corridors aim to avoid residences to the greatest extent possible. A voluntary buy-out policy has been developed for residences within 75 m of the transmission line.

9 Recreation and Tourism 9.1 Use of Manitoba Hydro ROW for trails. Manitoba Hydro will work with local authorities to

manage access along the right-of-way once a final route has been approved and will work with landowners who wish to implement measures to limit access to the right-of-way.

To minimize the potential increase in access existing trails, roads and cut lines will be used as access routes whenever possible.

10 Agricultural Land Use 10.1 Loss of high quality farm land. Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project Landowner

Compensation Information To reduce the potential effects on agriculture, the preference is to align the route along the half-mile (quarter-section). Self-supporting towers with a smaller footprint are used in agricultural areas to lessen the effects to agriculture. Alignments along road rights-of-ways require offsets due to the height of the 500 kV towers and the requirement that the transmission line right-of-way cannot overlap the road right-of-way.

10.2 Impacts to farm equipment operation and manure application.

AC Lines and Electronic Devices Towers in agricultural areas are self-supporting towers in order to eliminate the hazard guyed wires could create for agricultural producers. Manitoba Hydro routes along half-mile (quarter-section) alignments, when possible, to lessen potential impacts on individual producers.

10.3 Transmission line rights-of-way become areas for growth of noxious weeds.


For right-of-way maintenance, an Integrated Vegetation Management Program will be developed.

10.4 Transmission lines interfere with aerial application.

Locations of airstrips were identified in the early planning phases and were avoided where possible in transmission line routing. Manitoba Hydro has been in discussions with the Manitoba Aerial Applicators Association regarding the Project.






11 Livestock Operations 11.1 Potential effect on livestock,

particularly dairy cattle (tingle voltage). Stray Voltage on Dairy Farms – Symptoms and Solutions– This reference document, prepared by Manitoba Hydro, included worksheets to assist landowners with determining stray voltage in their livestock operations.

Tingle voltage tends to occur with faulted distribution lines, as opposed to major transmission lines. Livestock operators are encouraged to contact Manitoba Hydro if they have noticed occurrences in order to allow for identification of the source.

11.2 Potential bio-security issues particularly related to construction in pasture lands.


Manitoba Hydro has an existing Agricultural Biosecurity Policy that creates standard operating procedures that assess potential biosecurity risks, considering factors such as soil conditions and time of year, and prescribes actions to manage potential risks. Manitoba Hydro employees and contractors working on private agricultural land are trained and aware of these procedures. The Policy indicates that if the affected livestock operator’s personal/corporate Policy is more stringent than Manitoba Hydro’s Policy, Manitoba Hydro will abide by their protocols.

12 Infrastructure and Services (Lagoons, Landfills) 12.1 Avoid landfills and lagoons, and

cemeteries. Locations of landfills, lagoon and cemeteries are noted.

Structure placement generally tries to avoid crossing these features; however, there is sometimes a preference to route near these locations to minimize effects on farms and residences.

13 Traditional Land and Resource Use 13.1 Construction affects trapping activities

due to disruption to fur bearing animals.

Environmental characterization conducted as part of the environmental assessment process identifies potential sensitivities related to fur bearing animals and prescribes appropriate mitigation measures, such as modifications to construction scheduling.

13.2 Potential effects of construction and operation of the MMTP on mining and aggregate extraction.

Locations of mines and aggregate sites were identified in the early planning phases and were avoided when possible during the transmission line routing process. Manitoba Hydro worked with Landowners and Stakeholder Groups to identify and understand concerns and potential mitigation measures (routing and compensation) for construction, operation and maintenance near mining and aggregate sites, where possible.






14 Heritage Resources (Archaeology) 14.1 Avoidance of heritage sites, including

Centennial Farms and areas used for the religious practices (Praznik).

Heritage resources, including archaeological resources, were identified during the Transmission Line Routing Process and were avoided where possible. As feedback was received, it was considered in decision-making processes.

15 Other Land Uses 15.1 Proximity to school and daycare sites

(perceived health concerns). Alternating Current – Electric and Magnetic Fields and Health Canada – Electric and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines and Electrical Appliances

Known locations of school and daycare sites were considered in the transmission line routing process.

Informational sources including Health Canada, the World Health Organization and other international health entities state that no scientific evidence suggests that exposure to EMF will cause any negative health effects on humans, vegetation and wild or domestic animals.

Manitoba Hydro will design and maintain exposure levels from the transmission lines within the guidelines set forth by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection which have been adopted by the World Health Organization and Health Canada.

16 Transmission Line Routing 16.1 Determining Alternative Routes. Siting Transmission Lines Using the EPRI-GTC Siting

Methodology – This pamphlet was provided to show the general methodology, which has been adapted and used in the MMTP project. Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Route Selection Process – This handout presented the methodology used in transmission line routing, including the criteria and progress of the project.

Once a border crossing was selected, the information gained during Round 1 from a variety of Stakeholder Groups, open houses and the environmental assessment process was used to help route planners to refine or eliminate existing routes and develop potential new route alternatives to the border crossing near Piney, MB. In some cases, the route segments that were considered in Round 1 were determined to effectively balance the three perspectives in routing (natural, built, engineering), and were retained. In some cases they did not and were eliminated. New segments and refinements to existing segments were added to provide alternatives that achieve the routing objective of connecting the start and end point of the project.

16.2 Where possible, locate transmission lines within existing Hydro transmission line corridors or existing linear corridors.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Route Selection Process

Part of the line is in an existing Hydro corridor known as the Southern Loop Transmission Corridor. There is also potential to parallel existing lines running east of the City of Winnipeg. For reliability reasons paralleling is not always possible or desirable.






16.3 Where possible, locate transmission line infrastructure adjacent to linear infrastructure such as Provincial and municipal highways, roads and drains in order to reduce land requirements.

Alignments with other linear features were identified as potential routing opportunities in the Transmission Line Routing Process and were taken advantage of where possible. In agricultural zones, a 500 kV transmission line must be placed in-field so to ensure the entire right-of-way width does not overlap any road rights-of-way, for reliability reasons. Therefore, a preferred option for many in intensive agricultural areas is routing along the half-mile to reduce in-field presence of a transmission line.

16.4 Maintain straight transmission lines, with few angles.

Shorter and straighter lines typically suggest lower costs. There are extra costs associated with direction changes due to heavier tower construction to accommodate greater stresses. When possible angles are avoided during routing.




Q. Public Engagement Program Best Practice

The Public Engagement Process provided multiple opportunities for Stakeholder Groups and the public to receive information about and provide input to be considered in the Transmission Line Routing Process to determine a Preferred Route for the Project, and the related Environmental Assessment.

The engagement approach was based on standards developed by the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) Core Values1, The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agencies’ Key Elements of Meaningful Public Participation, and the International Association for Impact Assessment’s (IAIA) Principles of Best Practices. The range of opportunities provided and the efforts made to contact Stakeholder Groups and public alike, as well as the multiple rounds of engagement, reflect best practices in public engagement identified where those impacted by the infrastructure project are notified, informed, engaged, heard and provided with further feedback.

R. Recommendations for Public Engagement

Upon evaluation of the Round 2 activities and feedback received from the public, the following recommendations for Round 3 public engagement activities were made:

Registered mail should be used to notify affected landowners of project information. Continue to provide updates to the public throughout the project. Recommendation to use additional venues, in different communities.

1 http://iap2canada.ca/page-994361

AECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

Table StatemenLetter of DistributiExecutive

1. P

1

11

11

2. S

2

22

3. P

33

3


of Conte

nt of QualificTransmittal ion List e Summary

Public Engag

.1 Manito1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4

.2 Purpos

.3 Compo1.3.1 1.3.2

.4 Relatio

.5 Round

Stakeholder

.1 Identif2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3

.2 Stakeh

.3 Summ2.3.1

Public Open

.1 Purpos

.2 Metho3.2.1

3.2.2 3.2.3

.3 Summ3.3.1 3.3.2


ents

cations and L

gement Pro

oba-MinnesotProject DesProject NeeRequired ROverall Pub

se, Goals andonents of Pub

Integrated DPrincipal Co

on to Round 1d 2 Report Or

Group Mee

ication of StaNotificationStakeholdeStakeholde

holder Groupsmaries of Conc

Review of SRoute Segm

Houses ....

se .................dology ..........

Advertising3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3 3.2.1.4 3.2.1.5 3.2.1.6 Public OpePOH Inform

3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3

mary of ResultAnalysis of Review of R

3.3.2.1 3.3.2.2

Manitoba Hy


Limitations

ocess ..........

ta Transmissiscription ........ed .................

Regulatory Apblic Engagemd Objectives oblic EngagemDelivery ........omponents o1 Transmissioganization ....

etings .........

keholder Gro for Stakehold

er Groups – Iner Groups – Rs and Landowcerns and PreStakeholder Gments ...........

...................

.....................

..................... and NotificatNewspaper aPostcard NotTelephone CManitoba HyManitoba HyPosters ........n House Ven

mation StationStoryboardsiPad Map StaHandouts an

ts – Public OpComment Sh

Results .........Number of RHow Respon

ydro


...................

on Project .................................................

pprovals .........ment Process .

of the Public Ement Process .......................f the Round 2on Line Routin......................

...................

oups ...............der Groups ...nformed of Ro

Requested Rowner Meetingeferences fromGroup Concer......................

...................

......................

......................tion ...............and Newslettetifications ......

Call Notificatioydro Project Wydro Email Ca......................ues and Date

ns .......................................ations ............

nd Comment Spen Houses ...heets ...................................

Responses .....ndents Were I

x

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................Engagement ..........................................2 PEP ...........ng Process .......................

...................

.....................

.....................ound 2 PEP ..ound 2 PEP Ms ..................m Stakeholderns and Prefe.....................

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................er Advertising.....................

ons ................Website .........ampaign .............................es ................................................................................Sheets .............................................................................................Informed of E

Manitoba-MSummary o

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................Process ................................................................................................................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................Meetings ........

.....................er Group Meeerences for Al.....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................g ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Events ...........

Minnesota Transmisof Round 2 Public E

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................etings............lternative .....................

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

ssion Project Engagement Proces

i

...... 1

....... 1

....... 1

....... 1

....... 1

....... 2

....... 2

....... 3

....... 3

....... 3

....... 3

....... 4

...... 5

....... 5

....... 5

....... 5

....... 7

....... 8

....... 9

..... 12

.... 14

..... 14

..... 14

..... 14

..... 14

..... 15

..... 15

..... 15

..... 15

..... 16

..... 16

..... 17

..... 17

..... 17

..... 17

..... 19

..... 19

..... 19

..... 19

..... 20

ss

AECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3

4. M

4

5. E

5

5

6. S

66

66666

7. S

77

7


3.3.3

.4 Lando

Manitoba Hy

.1 Summ4.1.1

4.1.2

Environmen

.1 Metho5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5

.2 Compa

Summary of

.1 Approa

.2 NaturaSegme

.3 Built E

.4 Social

.5 Detaile

.6 Socio-

.7 VC an

Summary of

.1 Summ

.2 Summ7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

.3 Socio-


3.3.2.3 3.3.2.4 3.3.2.5 3.3.2.6 3.3.2.7 3.3.2.8 3.3.2.9 3.3.2.10 3.3.2.11 3.3.2.12 3.3.2.13

Open Hous 3.3.3.1

wner Informa

ydro Email a

mary of RoundComments

4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2 4.1.1.3

Follow-up ..

tal Assessm

dology ..........Received FData Level EnvironmenDescriptionConcerns a

5.1.5.1 5.1.5.2 5.1.5.3

arison of VC

f Results for

ach ...............al Environmenent ................

Environment CCategory Co

ed Responses-economic Red EA Sub-cat

f Results for

mary by Genermary by EA Da

Natural EnvBuilt EnviroSocial Envi

-Economic Da

Manitoba Hy


Comments oRespondentsPublic EngagNotification oValued ComSummary of Summary of Specific SitesMitigation of General ConGeneral Com

se Mapping SSummaries o

ation Forms ...

and Telepho

d 2 PEP Emai.....................General ComLocation SpeSummary of .....................

ment Data C

.....................Files ...............

Coding and Pntal Assessm

n of General Cand PreferencNatural EnvirBuilt EnvironSocial Enviroand EA Codin

r Transmiss

.....................nt Category R.....................

Category Cononcerns and Ps by Alternati

esponses by Ategories Com

r Environm

ral Concerns ata Category .vironment Caonment Categronment Cate

ata Sets ........

ydro


on Notifications’ Locations ..gement Proceof Project Updponents (VC)Concerns .....Preferences .s and ConstraPotential Effe

ncerns or Issumments ..........Stations ..........of Concerns a......................

one Line ....

il and Telepho......................mments/Queriecific CommeTelephone a

......................

Coding .......

......................

......................Public Comm

ment Related CCoding Sub-caces for Evaluaronment Catement Catego

onment Categng .................

sion Line R

......................Routing Conce......................

ncerns and PrPreferences bve Route SegAlternative Ro

mparison ........

ental Asses

versus Prefe......................

ategory Data ..gory Data.......egory ..................................

x

n and Improvi.....................ess................dates ............) ..............................................................aints .............ects ..............ues ..........................................................and Preferenc.....................

...................

one Contacts.....................ies ................

ents ...............nd Email Com.....................

...................

.....................

.....................ments Databas

Coding .........ategories .....ation of Alternegory ............ory .................gory ...................................

Routing .......

.....................erns and Pref.....................references byby Route Seggment ...........oute Segmen.....................

ssment Dat

rences ..................................................................................................................

Manitoba-MSummary o

ng Notificatio.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ces .....................................

....................

s ...................................................................................

mmunication ......................

....................

.....................

.....................se ............................................................

native Route S....................................................................................

....................

.....................ferences by R.....................

y Route Segmment ..................................

nt ........................................

ta .................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

Minnesota Transmisof Round 2 Public E

on ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................Segments ........................................................................................

...................

.....................Route .....................

ment ..................................................................................................

...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

ssion Project Engagement Proces

ii

..... 20

..... 21

..... 21

..... 22

..... 22

..... 25

..... 30

..... 38

..... 42

..... 48

..... 48

..... 53

..... 54

..... 61

.... 65

..... 65

..... 65

..... 65

..... 66

..... 71

..... 72

.... 74

..... 74

..... 74

..... 77

..... 77

..... 78

..... 79

..... 79

..... 80

..... 81

..... 82

.... 87

..... 87

..... 88

..... 89

..... 90

..... 91

..... 92

..... 94

.... 96

..... 96

..... 97

..... 97

..... 97

..... 98

..... 99

ss



Manitoba_Minnesota_Transmission_Project_Summary_Of_Round_2_Public_Engagement_Process_September2015.Docx iii

7.4 EA Data Sources ............................................................................................................. 100 7.4.1 Profiles of Participants ....................................................................................... 100

8. Issues Identified .......................................................................................................... 101

9. Round 2 Feedback and the Transmission Line Routing Process .......................... 108

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Summary of Round 2 Stakeholder Group and Landowner Meetings .......................................... 8

Table 2-2: Summary of Stakeholder Groups Concerns by Alternative Route Segment ............................... 9

Table 2-3: Summary of Stakeholder Groups Preferences by Alternative Route Segment ......................... 11

Table 3-1: Summary of Manitoba Hydro Email Campaigns ........................................................................ 16

Table 3-2: List of Public Open House Venues and Dates .......................................................................... 16

Table 3-3: Comment Sheets Returned ....................................................................................................... 19

Table 3-4: Evaluation of Valued Components (from Comment Sheets) ..................................................... 23

Table 3-5: VC and Specific Concerns by Alternative Route Segment ........................................................ 26

Table 3-6: VC and Specific Preferences by Alternative Route Segment .................................................... 30

Table 3-7: Summary of Concerns and Preferences by VC Category ......................................................... 32

Table 3-8: Number of Preferences by Route Segment ............................................................................... 36

Table 3-9: Alternative Route Segment Scores from Comment Sheets ...................................................... 37

Table 3-10: Alternative Route Segment Scores from Comment Sheets .................................................... 38

Table 3-11: Mitigation Approaches ............................................................................................................. 42

Table 3-12: Summary of Concerns from POH Mapping Stations ............................................................... 54

Table 3-13: Summary of Preferences from POH Mapping Stations ........................................................... 59

Table 3-14: Alternative Route Segment Scores from POH Mapping Stations ........................................... 61

Table 3-15: Summary of LIF Results .......................................................................................................... 62

Table 4-1: Email and Telephone Calls Received by Manitoba Hydro by Type .......................................... 65

Table 4-2: Summary of Site Specific Concerns and Preferences (Email and Telephone Calls Received by Manitoba Hydro) ................................................................................................. 66

Table 4-3: Summary of Route Segment Recommendations (Email and Telephone)................................. 70

Table 5-1: AECOM Index Number Structure .............................................................................................. 76

Table 5-2: AECOM Comment Type Identifier ............................................................................................. 77

Table 5-3: Environmental Assessment Sub-categories for Data Coding ................................................... 78

Table 5-4: Comparison of EA Sub-categories and Valued Component Categories ................................... 82

Table 8-1: Issues Identified ....................................................................................................................... 102

Table 9-1: Summary of Feedback Considered in the Transmission Line Routing Process ..................... 108



Manitoba_Minnesota_Transmission_Project_Summary_Of_Round_2_Public_Engagement_Process_September2015.Docx iv

List of Figures

Figure A-1: Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing ............................................................................................................................ ES-12

Map 1-1-1: Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project: Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing ................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3-1: Relative Response Frequency in Valued Component Categories ........................................... 25

Figure 4-1: Email and Telephone Communications – Topics ..................................................................... 71

Figure 4-2: Socio-economic Topics from Email and Telephone Logs ........................................................ 72

Figure 4-3: Sample MMTP Email Notification ............................................................................................. 73

Figure 5-1: Process for Management of Public Feedback Data ................................................................. 75

Figure 6-1: Relative Numbers of Responses in Each Data Category ........................................................ 87

Figure 6-2: Overall Summary of Concerns and Preferences by Alternative Route Segment ..................... 88

Figure 6-3: Natural Environment Category - Frequency of Concerns and Preferences ............................. 89

Figure 6-4: Built Environment Category - Frequency of Concerns and Preferences ................................. 90

Figure 6-5: Social Environment Category - Frequency of Concerns and Preferences............................... 91

Figure 6-6: Stakeholder Groups and Public Feedback by General Categories for Alternative Route Segments ...................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 6-7: Socio-economic Considerations by Alternative Route ............................................................. 93

Figure 6-8: Comparison of Concerns and Preferences from Valued Components .................................... 94

Figure 7-1: Overview of Environmental assessment Sub-categories Concerns versus Preferences ........ 96

Figure 7-2: Natural Environment Category by Alternative Route Segment ................................................ 97

Figure 7-3: Built Environment Category by Alternative Route Segment ..................................................... 98

Figure 7-4: Social Environment Category by Alternative Route Segment .................................................. 99

Figure 7-5: Frequency of Socio-economic Considerations for All Alternative Route Segments .............. 100

Appendices

Appendix A1 Records of Stakeholder Group Meetings Appendix A2 RM of Tache Petition Appendix B Public Open House Advertising and Poster Locations Appendix C1 Public Open House Storyboards and Material Appendix C2 Public Open House Comment Sheet Appendix C3 General Comments from POH Appendix C4 Comment Sheet Data Appendix D Landowner Information Forms Appendix E Email and Telephone Communications Appendix F Map 1-1: Round 2 Refined Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing Appendix G Notification Letters to Stakeholder Groups



Manitoba_Minnesota_Transmission_Project_Summary_Of_Round_2_Public_Engagement_Process_September2015.Docx 1

1. Public Engagement Process

1.1 Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project

1.1.1 Project Description

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (MMTP) involves an environmental assessment for the construction of a 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line in southern Manitoba and upgrades to Manitoba Hydro’s Dorsey, Riel, and Glenboro Stations. Originating at the Dorsey Converter Station northwest of Winnipeg, the transmission line will travel south around Winnipeg, prior to running south to a border crossing on the Manitoba-Minnesota border. At the border the transmission line will connect to the Great Northern Transmission Line constructed by Minnesota Power, which will terminate at Blackberry Station, northwest of Duluth, Minnesota.

The anticipated in-service date for the project is 2020.

1.1.2 Project Need

In 2012–13 Manitoba Hydro export sales totaled $353 million, with 88% derived from sales in the U.S. market, and 12% from Canadian markets. Manitoba Hydro’s utility customers in the United States want long-term price certainty and stability. These utilities see value in purchasing hydroelectricity from Manitoba through long-term fixed contracts that are not linked to volatile natural gas prices and will not be subject to future changes in regulatory requirements associated with air emissions. The MMTP will meet conditions of a 250 megawatt (MW) power sale to Minnesota Power and will allow for increased access to markets in the United States, which could lead to further sales to other utilities.

Manitoba Hydro also imports power in situations of extreme drought to meet provincial demands exceeding Manitoba Hydro’s generating capacity. This line will provide a secondary 500-kV line to support provincial needs if required.

Adding a second 500-kV interconnection will also increase Manitoba Hydro’s ability to import electricity, strengthening the reliability of the province’s electricity supply. In times of extreme drought or an unforeseen outage, transmission interconnections to other utilities provide access to electricity needed to meet demand in Manitoba.

1.1.3 Required Regulatory Approvals

Regulatory approvals include the following considerations:

National Energy Board Act and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012). Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (MCWS). Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission (CEC) may become involved. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be developed that will be subject to review and

approval under the respective federal and provincial environmental regulatory processes.

Construction of the proposed MMTP will require a Class 3 License under The Environment Act (Manitoba).




The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project will include:

Study area characterization, obtained through site visits and background investigations. Documentation of public engagement to obtain input and feedback into transmission line routing

and the environmental assessment. Assessment of potential environmental and socio-economic effects. Assessment of potential cumulative effects of the transmission line. Mitigation measures and monitoring plans developed for the Project. An environmental protection program.

1.1.4 Overall Public Engagement Process

The overall process of public engagement for MMTP will involve three Rounds:

Round 1 (October to November 2013)

Three (3) Alternative Border Crossing Areas reviewed. 59 Alternative Route Segments reviewed. Identified transmission line routing criteria and a Preferred Border Crossing Area.

Round 2 (April to August 2014)

Preferred Border Crossing location refined. 12 Alternative Route Segments.

Round 3 (January to May 2015)

Preferred Route to Border Crossing presented.

This report will summarize the results of the Round 2 PEP.

1.2 Purpose, Goals and Objectives of the Public Engagement Process

The purpose of the PEP was to facilitate the exchange of information between members of the public, and the Manitoba Hydro site selection and Environmental assessment teams regarding the construction of the proposed transmission line. During the transmission line routing and environmental assessment process, Manitoba Hydro sought input from local landowners, First Nations, the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF), local municipalities, Stakeholder Groups, government departments and the general public. Opportunities for participation include open houses, meetings, workshops and Manitoba Hydro’s website.

The public engagement goals for MMTP were as follows:

To share project information. To obtain feedback for use in the transmission line routing and environmental assessment

process. To gather and understand local interests and concerns. To integrate interests and concerns into the routing and assessment processes. To review potential mitigation measures.




Manitoba Hydro’s objectives in meeting these goals were as follows:

To involve the public throughout the transmission line routing and environmental assessment processes.

To provide clear, timely and relevant information and responses. To deliver a public engagement process that is adaptive and inclusive. To informing the public of how their feedback influenced the project. To document and report on feedback received.

Information collected as a result of the Round 2 PEP informed two principal aspects of the project:

Transmission line routing, particularly criteria for site selection, identification of a Preferred Route for the transmission line and confirmation of the Preferred Border Crossing area.

Environmental assessment, particularly Socio-economic considerations.

Information collected through the PEP included biophysical, socio-economic, and heritage data, as well as information on issues and concerns, preferences, and constraints related to 12 Alternative Route Segments.

1.3 Components of Public Engagement Process

1.3.1 Integrated Delivery

The PEP was developed in cooperation with Manitoba Hydro and their project consultants, AECOM and Stantec. The PEP involved close collaboration between Manitoba Hydro staff and AECOM staff, in particular. AECOM assisted Manitoba Hydro in the delivery and recording of Stakeholder Groups Meetings and POH events, as well as email and telephone communications with Stakeholder Groups and public participants.

1.3.2 Principal Components of the Round 2 PEP

Data sources related to site location concerns and preferences, physical features/constraints and mitigation of potential effects included:

Stakeholder Groups Meetings (Meetings). POH events – Comment Sheets and Map records. Email and telephone communications (Communications) with landowners and other interested

parties. Media outreach and information venues, e.g. mail-outs and Manitoba Hydro Website.

1.4 Relation to Round 1 Transmission Line Routing Process

In Round 1 of the PEP, three Alternative Border Crossing Areas and 59 Alternative Route Segments linking the potential border crossings to Dorsey Station were assessed by a panel of Manitoba Hydro and consultant specialists. Based on Stakeholder Groups and public comments and an Expert Judgment process, the alternatives were refined to provide a limited number of routing alternatives to one of the three border crossing areas.

For Round 2 of the PEP, Manitoba Hydro developed 12 Alternative Route Segments leading to a Preferred Border Crossing Area on the Manitoba-Minnesota border, considering Built Environment, Natural Environment, and Engineering features. The Alternative Route Segments and Preferred Border Crossing Area were based on the results of the Round 1 Transmission Line Routing Process.




Stakeholder Groups and members of the public were encouraged to participate in the Round 2 PEP in order to provide further input regarding appropriate Valued Components for the environmental assessment, criteria for transmission line routing, concerns and preferences, and potential mitigation approaches related to the Alternative Route Segments. Input from Round 2 will help to define a Preferred Route for the proposed transmission line.

Stakeholder Groups and public input to the Round 2 Transmission Line Routing Process included the following:

POH Comment Sheets, and Maps, which permitted members of the public, particularly local landowners and leasers, to indicate specific issues and concerns, preferences, constraints, and mitigation associated with the Alternative Route Segments.

Stakeholder Group Meetings were information sessions with Manitoba Hydro staff, which provided question and answer opportunities for Stakeholder Groups, typically representatives of government departments, municipalities, special interest groups, as well as landowner organizations and individuals.

Many respondents emailed, telephoned or wrote to Manitoba Hydro to provide a range of comments, some of which were specific to Alternative Route Segments and the Preferred Border Crossing.

Comment Sheets were also provided on the Manitoba Hydro Project Website, along with the information provided at the POHs (53% of Comment Sheets were submitted on-line).

1.5 Round 2 Report Organization

The following subsections summarize the general organization of this report. Sections 2 to 4 describe the PEP through summaries of Stakeholder Group Meetings, POH events, Communications, summarizing processes and results. Section 5 describes the overall EA data summary. Sections 6 and 7 present data in written and graphic form to assist in the Transmission Line Routing Process and Environmental Assessment, respectively. Section 7 discussing environmental assessment data also summarizes Socio-economic Concerns and Preferences (negative and positive impacts). Chapter 8 discusses Issues Identification for Round 3.

Detailed summaries of the Stakeholder Groups and public feedback, and materials used in the PEP are included in the report appendices.




2. Stakeholder Group Meetings

2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Groups

A Master Stakeholder Group List (MSL), based on Round 1 of the MMTP PEP, was maintained and utilized for Round 2. The MSL recorded the following information:

Individuals who participated in Round 1. Individuals interested in receiving project information. Individuals interested in attending a Stakeholder Group Workshop. Individuals interested in attending a POH. Individuals interested in meeting with Manitoba Hydro representatives. Email or hard copy correspondence preference. Name. Company/Group. Address. Telephone, fax, email contact information. Comments from pre-engagement survey. Letter or email types sent in Round 1 and preferences for Round 2 communications.

In May 2014, there were a total of 154 Stakeholder Groups in the MSL, including several names added on the recommendation of other Stakeholder Groups and Aboriginal representatives.

2.1.1 Notification for Stakeholder Groups

Manitoba Hydro notified all Stakeholder Groups regarding the Round 2 Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossings. On April 1, 2014 letters were sent to all Stakeholder Groups identified in the Round 2 MSL. Four different versions of the letter were sent out, based on preferences for communication Stakeholder Groups identified during Round 1. The categories of letters were as follows:

Letter A: Project notification, based on Stakeholder Groups preference for “Information Only”. Letter B: Request for meeting with Stakeholder Groups. Letter C: Project information for Stakeholder Groups specific to Glenboro expansion. Letter D: Request for meeting with multiple Stakeholder Groups within same organization.

Following delivery of the email and/or hard copy of the letters, attempts were made to contact all recipients of Letter B or Letter D to confirm receipt of the letter and attempt to schedule a meeting. Stakeholder Groups were initially contacted via telephone to determine whether they were interested in being interviewed regarding the Round 2 engagement (as per the email), and interview times were scheduled. A minimum of three attempts were made to contact all Letter B and D recipients. After three unsuccessful attempts, Manitoba Hydro identified the Stakeholder Groups as being “not available” for an interview.

A copy of Letters A-D can be found in Appendix G.

2.1.2 Stakeholder Groups – Informed of Round 2 PEP

Letter C was sent out only to Stakeholder Groups with potential interest in the Glenboro expansion. The letter was sent to the following Stakeholder Groups:

Village of Glenboro. RM of South Cypress. Assiniboine Hills Conservation District.




The MSL included 61 Stakeholder Groups from the following 52 organizations that received a copy of Letter A (Information Only):

50 by '30 All-Terrain Vehicles of Manitoba Inc. Boreal Forest Network Canadian Pacific Railway Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society City of Winnipeg CN Rail - Business Development & Real Estate Consumers Association of Canada Cooks Creek Conservation District Ducks Unlimited Ducks Unlimited Native Plant Solutions Green Party of Manitoba Local Urban District of Richer, Committee Member-Chairperson Macdonald-Ritchot Planning District Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Land Use) Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Rural Development) Manitoba Association of Cottage Owners Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship Departments:

o Aboriginal Relations o Air Quality o Climate Change o Ground Water Management o Office of Drinking Water o Water Use Licensing o Crown Lands

Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism Manitoba Eco Network Manitoba Floodway Authority Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation Manitoba Infrastructure & Transportation (Materials Engineering) Manitoba Innovation Energy & Mines (Energy Dev) Manitoba Lodges and Outfitters Manitoba Naturalists Society Manitoba Wilderness Committee Manitoba Wildlife Federation Manitoba Wildlife Society Mining Association of Manitoba Orchid Society Portage la Prairie Community Planning Services RM of De Salaberry RM of Franklin Sierra Club (Prairie Chapter Manitoba) Sno-Man Inc Southeast Sno-riders St. Norbert Ward - Winnipeg St. Vital Ward - Winnipeg Town of St. Pierre Jolys Trails Manitoba TransCanada Pipelines Limited Travel Manitoba University of Manitoba Village of Glenboro




2.1.3 Stakeholder Groups – Requested Round 2 PEP Meetings

Based on the letters sent to Stakeholder Groups identified in the MSL, the following groups/companies received a Round 2 meeting request letter (Letter B and Letter D). A total of 66 people from the 48 organizations listed below were contacted to request meetings:

Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship (Regional Director) Beausejour Community Planning Services Bird Atlas City of Steinbach Green Action Centre HyLife Integrated Resource Management Team KC's Outfitting Keystone Agricultural Producers Manitoba Aerial Applicators Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives Manitoba Chamber of Commerce Manitoba Conservation & Water Services (Water Control Works and Drainage Licensing) Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship:

o Fisheries o Parks o Protected Areas Initiative o Water Quality Management o Wildlife o Forestry

Manitoba Culture, Heritage, Tourism Manitoba Forestry Association Manitoba Health (Environmental Health Unit) Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (Planning and Design) Manitoba Innovation Energy & Mines (Mines) Manitoba Labour & Immigration (Office of Fire Commissioner) Manitoba Trappers Association Manitoba Wildlands Manitoba Woodlot Association Nature Conservancy Organic Producers Association of Manitoba Co-Operative Inc. RM of Hanover RM of Headingley RM of La Broquerie RM of MacDonald RM of Piney RM of Reynolds RM of Ritchot RM of Rosser RM of Springfield RM of Ste. Anne RM of Stuartburn RM of Tache Ruth Marr Consulting Seine-Rat River Conservation District




Steinbach Community Planning Services Steinbach Office Local Government Planners Town of Ste. Anne

Stakeholder Groups which requested meetings were contacted three (3) times following the initial meeting request letter to schedule meetings A total of 19 meetings were scheduled/held in April and May of 2014, some meetings included attendees from multiple Stakeholder Groups.

The following Stakeholder Groups were added during Round 2. The Stakeholder Groups were not part of the initial Round 2 MSL and were met with between April 2014 and September 10, 2014:

Sundown Coalition Tache Coalition Southeast Trappers Association Ste. Genevieve Landowner Reps. Two individual landowners

2.2 Stakeholder Groups and Landowner Meetings

During the PEP a total of 25 meetings with Stakeholder Groups and landowners were convened. Manitoba Hydro representatives met with over 115 Stakeholder Groups and landowner representatives at these meetings.

Summaries of the Stakeholder Groups/Landowner Meetings were recorded by Manitoba Hydro staff in attendance. Appendix A1 contains edited summaries of the following meetings.

Table 2-1: Summary of Round 2 Stakeholder Group and Landowner Meetings

Stakeholder Group Meetings Meeting Date

1. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship – Mammal Studies April 11, 2014

2. Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism April 22, 2014

3. RM of Piney April 23, 2014

4. RM of La Broquerie, RM of Hanover and Seine-Rat River Conservation District (Note: The RM of La Broquerie subsequently provided a letter to Manitoba Hydro, on May 16, 2014, including a RM Council Resolution 172-14: “…whereas the Council of the Rural Municipality of La Broquerie has serious concerns and objections to refined alternative route (Segment) #208”, “and whereas the Council is of the opinion that (Refined Alternative) route (Segment) #207 offers the least disruptive and economical route for citizens and Manitoba Hydro”; “Therefore be it resolve that the Council of the RM of La Broquerie on behalf of its citizens, strongly urge Manitoba Hydro to consider alternative route #207 as the logical alternative for this project.)

April 24, 2014

5. HyLife Limited April 24, 2014

6. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (Water Control Works & Drainage Licensing)

April 25, 2014

7. IRMT April 28, 2014

8. Keystone Agricultural Producers May 1, 2014

9. Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation May 5, 2014

10. RM of Ritchot May 6, 2014

11. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (Wildlife, Parks and PAI), Bird Atlas

May 7, 2014




Stakeholder Group Meetings Meeting Date

12. KC’s Outfitting May 8, 2015

13. Manitoba Chamber of Commerce May 8, 2014

14. Manitoba Mineral Resources (Mines Branch) May 12, 2014

15. RM of Rosser May 13, 2014

16. Town of Ste. Anne May 13, 2014

17. RM of Ste. Anne May 14, 2014

18. Landowner (St. Genevieve Landowner Representatives) May 20, 2015

19. Nature Conservancy May 20, 2014

20. RM of Tache (Note: On September 10, 2014 a petition was presented to Manitoba Hydro from the landowners in the RM of Tache. A copy is attached in Appendix A2. In total 117 individuals signed the petition, which stated that “We the undersigned oppose the construction of the proposed Manitoba Minnesota Transmission Line and the siting of the line along the recently added routes, namely segments 202-203, 204. The siting of the line on these routes would be devastating to everyone on and around these segments”.)

May 20, 2014

21. Landowner (V) May 21, 2014

22. RM of Stuartburn May 22, 2014

23. RM of Reynolds May 27, 2014

24. Landowner (R) June 6, 2014

25. Landowner and RM Councillor (H) July 3, 2014

26. Landowner (Sundown Coalition Meeting) July 16, 2014

27. Landowner (Tache Landowner Coalition) September 10, 2014

28. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (Parks and Wildlife) September 25, 2014

29. Southeast Trappers Association October 6, 2014

2.3 Summaries of Concerns and Preferences from Stakeholder Group Meetings

Table 2-2 provides a list of Concerns identified in Stakeholder Group Meetings. The table is organized by Alternative Route Segments and Valued Components, with detailed Concerns for each component organized by key words.

Table 2-2: Summary of Stakeholder Groups Concerns by Alternative Route Segment

Alternative Route

Segment VC Number Detailed Concerns Number

200 Infrastructure and Services

2 New Highway By-pass construction (Headingley and St. Norbert areas) and spacing of towers.

201 N/A 0

202 Property & Residential Development

1 Many properties, split acreages and subdivisions, limiting potential development for some parcels.

1

202 Public Safety and Human Health

1 Access – ATVs use existing transmission line ROW to access quarry. Trapping occurs along the line, garbage and potential for fires from smokers.

1

202 Aesthetics 1 Impact on community character. 1




Alternative Route


202 Wildlife 1 Valuable wildlife habitat – Golden-winged warbler Impact on community character.

1

Total 4


1 Many properties, split acreages and subdivisions, limiting potential development for some parcels.

1


1 Access – ATVs use existing transmission line ROW to access quarry. Trapping occurs along the line, garbage and potential for fires from smokers.

1

203 Aesthetics 1 Impact on community character. 1

203 Wildlife 1 Valuable wildlife habitat – Golden-winged warbler Impact on community character.

1

Total 4

204 N/A 0 No Comments Recorded.


2 Future commercial development on PTH #1. Proximity to existing residence and new development.

2


1 TransCanada Highway is already highly developed and there are future plans for additional development along the highway.

1

Total 3


1 Future subdivision south of the Trans-Canada Highway near jog “Country Route Lane”.

1

206 Vegetation and Wetlands

1 MCWS - concern about proximity to Balsam Ecological Reserve (Sensitive Site Declaration).

1


1 Rail line would also parallel highway, creating too many parallel rights-of-way.

1

Total 3


1 One home potentially in right-of-way. 1

207 Heritage Resources 1 High potential for heritage sites on Bedford Ridge. 1


1 Proximity to Watson P. Davidson Wildlife Management Area.

1

207 Recreation and Tourism

1 Concern about impact on golf course. 1

Total 4


1 a) Too close to Town of La Broquerie. b) Concern about impact on golf course.

1

208 Livestock Operations 1 Easement 300 m from cattle barn; Segment would impact HyLife operations.

1

208 Cost 1 Swamp land – concerns about access and construction. 1

Total 3

209 Agricultural Land Use 1 Private Property – berry farmer. 1




Alternative Route


209 Heritage Resources 2 Cemetery – grave of a little girl. High potential heritage area at Rat River crossing.

2

209 Wildlife 2 Relatively intact habitat polygons. Concern by RM of Stuartburn.

2

209 Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

1 Bear bait locations; KCs Outfitting. 1


1 Control structure on Horseshoe Lake /Sundown Lake. 1

Total 7


1 RM of Piney partner in airstrip. Runway expansion near Piney. Concern about glide path interference.

1


2 Bog complex west of Segment has a high ecological value. Concern by RM of Stuartburn.

2

Total 3

211 Vegetation and Wetland

1 Bog straddling the international border. 1

211 Wildlife 3 Relatively intact habitat polygons; avoid due to wildlife. 3

211 Infrastructure and Servicing

1 Do not interfere with Piney Airport (2.5 miles from edge of ROW).

1

Total 5

211 Other 1 Why is this route even being considered?

General Agricultural Land Use 1 Aerial applicator concerns in agricultural areas. 1

Livestock Operations 1 EMF effects on dairy farms/health impacts on cattle. 1

Property & Residential Development

1 Impact of the transmission line on property values. 1

Resource Use 1 Mines Branch would evaluate claims on a case-by-case basis.

1

Cost 2 Payback time for the transmission line. Viability of the MMTP, export sales.

2

Total 6

The same Stakeholder Group Meetings data set was also used to identify Stakeholder Group Preferences.

Table 2-3: Summary of Stakeholder Groups Preferences by Alternative Route Segment

Alternative Route

Segment VC Number Detailed Preferences Number

200 N/A

201 Aesthetics 1 Manitoba Conservation, Tourism, Heritage preferred Segment 201 vs 205 due to views on Trans-Canada Highway.

1


1 MIT prefer over Segment 205. 1

Total 2




Alternative Route



1 MIT preferred over Segment 205. 1

Total 1

203 N/A 0

204 NA 0


1 MCWS preferred this Segment over 201 from a wildlife perspective.

1

1 Seine-Rat River Conservation District preferred this Segment to 202, 203 and 204.

Total 2

206 N/A 0


1 RM of La Broquerie preferred this Segment to 208 - least impact on citizens.

1

Total 1


1 RM of Piney preferred this Segment to 207. 1

208 Tourism and Recreation

1 Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism – preferred this Segment to 207.

1

208 Wildlife 1 MCWS - preferred this Segment to 207. Preference of Wildlife.

1


2 MCWS - preferred this Segment to 207. Preference of Protected Areas Initiative and Parks.

2

Total 5

209 N/A 0

210 Wildlife 1 MCWS Mammal Studies prefers this Segment. 1

Total 1

211 N/A 0

General Follow Existing Infrastructure

2 Parallel other transmission lines Parallel existing D602F line.

2

Total 2

2.3.1 Review of Stakeholder Group Concerns and Preferences for Alternative Route Segments

There were distinct differences between Stakeholder Group Concerns and Preferences for most of the Alternative Route Segments.

Segment 200: concerns from MIT about new highway by-passes and location of towers. Segment 201: was preferred over Segment 205 by Manitoba Culture Heritage and Tourism due

to aesthetic considerations.




Segments 202, 203 and 204 versus 205: the first three segments were preferred by Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (MCWS), Mammal Studies due to habitat concerns with Segment 205; local landowners also had Property & Residential Development concerns related to Segment 205; however, Segment 205 was preferred by the Seine-Rat River Conservation District related to vegetation and wetland considerations.

Segment 206: MCWS had concerns related to its proximity to the Balsam Ecological Reserve. Segment 207: preferred by representatives of the RM of La Broquerie, HyLife and KCs Outfitting,

while Segment 208 was strongly preferred by the two government departments (MCHT and MCWS) and the RM of Piney.

Segment 210: MCWS and KCs Outfitting preferred, but the RM of Piney was concerned about an airstrip, of which they were joint owners, near Segments 210 and 211.

Segment 211: Concern by the RM of Piney and others about impacts on existing habitat along.




3. Public Open Houses

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the POH events were to understand local concerns, collect feedback, and to identify interests, opportunities and constraints that would be considered for the environmental assessment and Transmission Line Routing Process. This involved informing the public about the project, and obtaining feedback from Stakeholder Groups, landowners and members of the public regarding their criteria for environmental assessment and transmission line routing, and their transmission line routing preferences.

Key approaches to obtaining information from attendees included:

1. Comment Sheets: The POH Comment Sheets provided opportunities for respondents to describe general and specific concerns and preferences; provide specific location data for sites that Manitoba Hydro should take into account in their transmission line construction, and to suggest mitigation approaches and siting criteria.

2. Maps: Allowed attendees to show Manitoba Hydro the specific locations of potentially affected properties or features, and to specify the perceived impacts of the transmission line.

3. Landowner Information Forms: The Landowner Information Forms (LIF) provided opportunities for respondents to describe their property in detail, including site specific data. The forms were made available throughout Round 2 at the POH venues.

Information obtained through each of these POH information gathering techniques is analyzed in separate sections below.

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Advertising and Notification

3.2.1.1 Newspaper and Newsletter Advertising

Newspaper advertising for the POH events was printed in the Winnipeg Free Press and Winnipeg Sun, including a Free Press article on April 9, 2014 prior to the start of the 10 POH events. Advertisements were also placed in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 5, 2014 and April 26, 2014, and in the Winnipeg Sun on April 6, 2014 and April 27, 2014.

French-language POH advertising was printed in the francophone La Liberte on April 2, 9 and 16, Advertisements also appeared in a number of weekly newspapers, as indicated below.

Beausejour Clipper Thursday, April 24, 2014 Canstar Weeklies (Sou’wester and The Lance) Wednesday, April 16 and 22, 2014 Dawson Trail Dispatch (monthly paper) Wednesday, April 2, 2014 Manitoba Co-operator Thursday, April 3, 10 and 17, 2014 Steinbach Carillon Thursday, April 3, 10 and 17, 2014 Headingly Headliner Friday, May 2, 2014 Grassroots News (Aboriginal) Thursday, April 8 and 22, 2014

Ads were typically in the range of 7” x 9”, with the smallest being 5” x 7” and the largest, 7.5” x 10”.

A radio station (NCI-FM) also carried advertising related to the POH events for Round 2.

NCI-FM, on Metis Hour, Saturdays April 12 and 19, 2014; and three times daily Monday to Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. from April 7 to 25, 2014.




An additional round of advertising was undertaken in advance of the second Ste. Anne open house, held June 18, 2014. French-language Public Open House advertising was printed in the francophone La Liberte on Wednesday, June 11, 2014. The ads were placed as follows.

Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, June 14, 2014 Winnipeg Sun Sunday, June 15, 2014 Steinbach Carillon Thursday, June 12, 2014 Beausejour Clipper Thursday, June 12, 2014

Samples of the advertisements are included in Appendix B.

3.2.1.2 Postcard Notifications

Manitoba Hydro also produced short postcards informing people about upcoming Round 2 MMTP POHs. A mail drop on March 18, 2014 included 24,520 postcards with a map showing the Alternative Routes. An additional 1,800 postcards were sent out in March, 31, 2014 regarding the first 10 of 11 POH events.

Postcards described the Transmission Line Routing and Environmental Assessment Processes, and Engagement Process; provided a map showing the Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing area, and described the Southern Loop Transmission Corridor.

3.2.1.3 Telephone Call Notifications

Manitoba Hydro representatives contacted members of the public by telephone in advance of events, if requested. During Round 1, attendees at public events were asked if they would like to be contacted by telephone or email to stay informed on upcoming events. If attendees indicated telephone notifications, their contact information was added.

In total, 96 phone calls were made directly to residents to inform them of the Round 2 Open Houses.

3.2.1.4 Manitoba Hydro Project Website

The MMTP Project page was developed and maintained by Manitoba Hydro. The website includes links to all materials presented at open houses, project status updates, advertisements and regulatory information.

Public feedback is collected on the website and the public is provided with links to the project-specific email address ([email protected]), telephone numbers and mailing address. A link is also provided for those interested in signing up for the project related email notifications.

During Round 2 of engagement, an electronic version of the comment sheet was also made available on the website from April 1, 2014 to August 15, 2014.

3.2.1.5 Manitoba Hydro Email Campaign

A total of 120 email addresses were obtained from POH Sign-in Sheets/Comment Sheets, and additional email addresses were obtained from on-line respondents. Email Campaign notifications were sent out as reminders of upcoming POH on the following dates:




Table 3-1: Summary of Manitoba Hydro Email Campaigns

Email CampaignNotification Date

Number of EmailAddresses Notified

April 1, 2014 203May 21, 2014 398June 6, 2014 383July 21, 2014 393August 8, 2014 419August 18, 2014 417October 28, 2014 435

3.2.1.6 Posters

A total of 64 posters were posted in 17 communities in well-frequented locations, including: post office box locations, credit unions, grocery stores, pharmacies, motels, restaurants and bars, liquor commissions, gas stations, and community bulletin boards.

Communities included: Anola, Dugald, Giroux, Iles des Chenes, La Broquerie, Lorette, Marchand, Piney, Richer, Ste. Anne, Ste. Genevieve, Sandilands, South Junction, Sprague, Sundown, Vita and Wood Ridge.

An additional 45 posters were posted in 8 communities in advance of the second POH held in Ste. Anne on June 18th, 2014. A list of poster locations is included in Appendix B.

3.2.2 Public Open House Venues and Dates

Table 3-2: List of Public Open House Venues and Dates

Location Venue Date and Hours

Ste. Anne, MB Seine River Banquet Centre, 80A Arena Road

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Richer, MB Richer Young at Heart Community Club, Dawson Road at Highway 302

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Vita, MB Vita Community Hall, 209 Main Street North


Piney, MB Piney Community Centre, Highway No. 89 (Main Street)


La Broquerie, MB La Broquerie Arena, 35 Normandeau Bay

Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Dugald, MB Dugald Community Club, 554 Holland Street


Marchand, MB Marchand Community Club, Dobson Avenue


Lorette, MB Lorette Community Complex, 1420 Dawson Road

Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Headingley, MB Headingley Community Centre, 5353 Portage Avenue

Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Winnipeg, MB Holiday Inn Winnipeg South, 1330 Pembina Highway

Thursday, May 8, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Ste. Anne, MB Seine River Banquet Centre, 80A Arena Road

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.2.3 P

The POH station, aland feedbPreferred addressed

3.2.1.1

Manitoba project testoryboard

OwUst

Owtr

Ocr

3.2.1.2

IPad Mapline commissues anStations.

Many PO

3.2.1.3

Handouts

MMTP Pr

MAHPR

Minfe(VcoS

Mle


POH Informa

events were ll intended toback about aBorder Cros

d concerns an

Storyboards

Hydro prepaeam to date; ds as follows

One set of stowhy it was neeUSA markets. tation improve

One set of stowas the princi

ansmission liOne set of storiteria.

iPad Map Sta

p Stations at ments from lnd concerns,

H attendees p

Handouts an

s at the POH i

oject Specific

Manitoba-Minnlternative Ro

Houses, and ireferred Bord

Round 1 from Manitoba-Minnncluded nine qeedback abouVCs); prefereonsiderationsheet did not i

Manitoba-Minnevel overview

M


ation Stations

organized aro provide infoattendees’ rossing. Manitond answered

ared storyboacopies of th

:

oryboards proeded: electricAdditional in

ements. oryboards desipal focus of ne; another poryboards ou

ations

each POH prandowners a, constraints

provided site

d Comment S

ncluded the f

c

nesota Transmutes: This nencluded the der CrossingStakeholder Gnesota Transmquestions regut the engagences, concern

s or recommenclude the re

nesota Transmof the project

Manitoba Hydro


s

round a seriesrmation abou

outing criteriaoba Hydro an

questions fro

ards describihese are fou

vided an introc power salesnformation in

scribed the enthe PEP. On

provided informtlined the Tra

rovided a meand other att

and propos

specific infor

Sheets

following mate

mission Projeewsletter wasproject timeli, and a sumGroups and thmission Projegarding the foement procesns or constraendations relaequest for respmission Projet and the revi


s of presentatut the proposea and preferend consultantom the public.

ing the overand in Appen

oduction to ths; reliability acluded; trans

nvironmental ne board dismation on Stuansmission L

eans for obtaitendees. AEC

sed realignme

mation as an

erials.

ect – Round prepared anine, tower de

mmary of the he public. ect Commentollowing: respss; levels of ints related toated to the ppondent inforect Quick Facew process.

MS

x

tion storyboaed transmissences relatedt staff memb.

all project anndix C1. Eac

he MMTP, indand import casmission line

assessmentscussed the rudy Area ChaLine Routing

ining locationCOM and Ments with att

notations on

2 – Preferrednd provided toesign, a map

general com

t Sheet (Apripondent backg

concern aboo the Alternat

project. The ormation. cts – This bro


rds, large maion line, and d to an Alterbers at the in

nd the work ch POH inclu

dicating whatpacity and actower desig

process, emregulatory reqaracterizationapproach, in

n-specific, detManitoba Hyd

tendees who

Maps.

d Border Croo attendees o

p of the Alternmments and c

il 2014) – Thground inform

out project Vative Route Seon-line versio

ochure was p


aps and a GISobtain inform

rnative Routenformation sta

completed buded three se

t was includeccess to addn alternatives

mphasizing thaquirements fo

ncluding evalu

tailed transmro staff discuo visited the

ossing and Reof the Public native Routeconcerns hea

e Comment mation and gealued Compoegments, andn of the Com

repared as a

roject ment Process

17

S map mation e and ations

by the ets of

d and itional s and

at this or the

uation

ission ussed Map

efined Open s and ard in

Sheet eneral onents other

mment

high-




Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Route Selection Process – This handout presented the methodology used in transmission line routing, including the criteria and progress of the project.


Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Round 1 Public Engagement Alternative Routes & Potential Border Crossings – The Round 1 brochure prepared for the previous POH was also available at the Round 2 POH. The brochure provided background information on the project, including the need, location and proposed export plans.

General Information

Alternating Current – Electric and Magnetic Fields – Prepared by Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting for Manitoba Hydro this handout provided an overview of AC electric and magnetic fields, health information related to EMF and audible noise from EMF.

AC Lines and Electronic Devices – Prepared by Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting, this provided information on EMF interference with electronic devices including GPS, wireless internet and signal blocking/reflection.

Health Canada – Electric and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines and Electrical Appliances – Information prepared by Health Canada was made available at the Public Open Houses, which discussed exposure to EMF, reducing risk and Canada’s role in monitoring EMF, and provided links to other agency reports.

Information for Proposed Pipeline or Power Line Projects that Do Not Involve a Hearing – This handout from the National Energy Board (NEB) outlined the general information requirements and processes involved for facilities applications, including ways in which the public should be engaged.


Manitoba Hydro’s “Seven things you should know about Manitoba’s energy future” – This brochure highlighted Manitoba Hydro’s Development Plan and provided facts about the corporation.

Siting Transmission Lines Using the EPRI-GTC Siting Methodology – This pamphlet provided the general methodology, which was adapted and used in the MMTP project.

Stray Voltage on Dairy Farms – Symptoms and Solutions – This reference document, prepared by Manitoba Hydro, included worksheets to assist landowners with determining stray voltage in their livestock operations.

Information on Manitoba Hydro Career Opportunities

The following Career Development and Training brochures were made available at the POHs to highlight some of the careers available through Manitoba Hydro.

Trades and Technology Programs. Business Commerce Career Development Program. Aboriginal Pre-Placement Training Program. Engineering Engineer-in-Training Program. Information Technology IT Career Development Program. Aboriginal Line Trades Pre-Placement Training Program. Customer Support Representative Customer Contact Centre. Manitoba Hydro Employment Line Business Card.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3

Attendeesupon entrthem to Mwhich ma

3.3.1

POH Comsummarizincludes t

3.3.2

The followassociate

3.3.2.1

Table 3-3each POHrate of 31other fambeen com442. Onlyrespond.

No. Lo

1 Ste

2 Ric

3 Vita

4 Pin

5 La

6 Dug

7 Ma

8 Lor

9 Hea

10 Win

11 Ste

12 Em

13 On

TO

Note: Th


Summary o

s were providry to the POHManitoba Hydy have includ

Analysis of

mment Sheezes the Commhe raw Comm

Review of R

wing subsectd with this se

Number of R

3 below summH event, as w1% of attendily members,

mpleted by POy 59 responde

ocation

e. Anne A

cher A

a A

ney A

Broquerie A

gald A

rchand A

rette M

adingley M

nnipeg M

e. Anne Ju

mailed To

line To

TAL

he timing of POH

M


of Results –

ed with CommH: of 658 attedro. In additioded feedback

Comment S

ets were anament Sheets ment Sheet da

Results

tions summaction is relate

Responses

marizes the nwell as by maees. Note th friends and n

OH attendeesents said they

Ta

Date

pril 15th

pril 16th

pril 22nd

pril 23rd

pril 24th

pril 29th

pril 30th

May 6th

May 7th

May 8th

une 18th

o July 18

o August 15

events was typica

Manitoba Hydro


– Public Ope

ment Sheets ndees at the

on 235 Commfrom some of

heets

alyzed usingreturned to

ata.

rize responseed to Commen

umber of atteail and email at Comment neighbours. S

s. The overally had attende

ble 3-3: Com

Number of A

90

38

30

31

69

86

48

91

14

30

131

-

-

658

ally 4:00 pm to 8:0


en Houses

(a copy of a C11 POH, 207

ment Sheets wf those who a

a MS ExcManitoba Hy

es to each ont Sheet data

endees and tto June 18, Sheets retur

Similarly som total of Comd a least one

mment Sheets

Attendees C

1

8

00 pm, although s

MS

x

Comment Sh7 completed were completattended POH

cel database.ydro by Augu

of the Comma only.

the number o2014. The torned later bye of the on-li

mment Sheetse POH; 52 sai

s Returned

Comment Sh

2

some ran longer.


eet is provideComment Shted online by

H events.

. The reportust 15, 2014

ment Sheet q

of Comment Sotal of 205 pry mail could ne comment s received froid they had no

heets Return

24

13

12

12

23

22

21

26

6

9

28

11

-

207


ed in Appendheets and rety August 15,

t in Appendiand Append

questions. An

Sheets returnovides a respinclude attensheets could

om all sourcesot, and 292 d

ned

CommShee

ComplOn-li

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

235

235

roject ment Process

19

ix C2) turned 2014,

ix C3 dix C4

nalysis

ned at ponse

ndees, d have s was

did not

ment ets leted ine

5

5

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.2

Respondenewspape

38 75 8 22 22 15 55

Note: IndiComment

3.3.2.3

A total of frequent r

Method of Le A N O M O In

Recomme

R E P T W N La

bure

TV S

Timing of

S

Informatio M A

M M


How Respon

ents were asker, website, p

8 received po5 saw newspsaw posters.2 saw informa2 received tel57 received a5 respondent

ividual respont Sheets retur

Comments o

120 commenresponses we

f Receiving Inetter on Com

Also received lNeighbour (18 Other (10 respMunicipal CouOther: [Hydro] nformed by Co

endations on Registered lett

mail (7 respoersonal contaelephone call

Website /SteinNotices direct t

a Broquerie aulletins/posteesponses) V exposure (cend them out

Notification (

end letters ea

on Provided (9Map not detaileAccuracy on thManitoba More informati

M


ndents Were I

ked how they hone and/or o

ostcards. aper advertis ation on the Mlephone callsa letter from Mts said they ha

ndents could rned.

on Notification

nts regarding ere concerned

nformation (53ment Sheet (letter in mail (responses)

ponses) ncillor/RM cobill /flyer (2 reonsumer Ass

Method of Coter /letter (10 onses) act/Go door tols (2 response

nbach on line to homes (2 r

area, the Carirs at the post

commercial-lit with monthly

12 total)

arlier

9 Total) ed enough he cost to rate

ve letter

Manitoba Hydro


Informed of E

heard about other).

ing.

Manitoba Hyd.

Manitoba Hydad not seen o

give more th

n and Improvin

notification abd with the met

3 Total): 7 responses)(13 response

ntacted (2 resesponses) ociation MB (

ontact (32 totaresponses)

o door especies) (2 responsesresponses) llion News (St office in La B

ike info) (22 ry bill (1 respo

e payers in


Events

the POH eve

dro website.

ro. or received a

an one answ

ng Notification

bout Public Othods of conta

s)

sponses)

(1 response)

al)

ially to the lan

s)

Steinbach), coBroquerie. No

esponses) nse)

MS

x

ent that they a

notice of the

wer. There we

n

Open House eact and timing

ndowners (5 r

ontacting the Mot enough not


attended (by p

POH.

ere 377 respo

events were pg of notificatio

responses)

Mayor's officetice through lo


postcard, lette

onses from th

provided. Theon.

e, public ocal sources.

roject ment Process

20

er,

e 207

e most

(11

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

Like the E

I a W

Other (4 t

E

3.3.2.4

RespondeAlternativecomment indicated not have a

3.3.2.5

A numbeProcess.

1. Respo

A numbecommunic

B M H U T D R

o o o o

o o o o o

In S F B

A total of


Engagement P

am happy witWell-advertise

otal)

ngagement p

Respondents

ents to the he Routes. Thsheets had that they livea response.

Public Engag

r of question

ondents were

r of people cation (knowle

etter CommuMore/Better InfHave Group DUse Better Adv

iming of NotifDates /DuratioRouting Recom

Use a routKeep off mAlready haNew segmshould notIf not buriePlace poleBuild in areGo with (SAvoid wild

nterested in Fatisfactory (2urther Notes ipole III and O

314 people d

M


Process (9 tot

th the engaged

process could

s’ Locations

hard copy Cois “optional” qthis question

ed/worked ne

gement Proce

ns were direc

e asked what

had concernedge of staff

unication and formation (7 riscussions (6vertising (18 rfication (13 ren of POH (5 r

mmendations te that has litt

my property ave one (trans

ments were intt be added afted, put Hydro es or towers oeas that are n

Segment) 207 life urther Inform0 responses)Provided (2 rOther Politica

id not answe

Manitoba Hydro


tal)

ement proces

improve if it w

omment Sheequestion was n completed. ar one of the

ess

cted to determ

Manitoba Hy

s about the and informati

More Qualifieresponses)

6 responses)responses)esponses) responses)(12 responsele to no popu

smission) linetroduced in Rter alternativeon bush land

on Governmennot prime sub

ation (4 respo) responses)l/Economic (1

r this question


s

was less polit

ets were askenot included Of the Com

e alternative r

mining how p

ydro could do

Public Openon) in particu

ed Staff (18 re

es), includinglation

e going througRound 2, whices were presed nt Road Allow

bdivision land

onses)

14 responses

n.

MS

x

tical/faster

ed if they livin the on-linement Sheets

routes, 31 ind

participants v

to improve th

n House advular. Generaliz

esponses)

:

gh. h affect propeented.

wances

s)


ved or workee survey. In tos with respondicated they d

viewed the P

he Public Ope

vertising (typezed comment

erty now. New


d near one ootal, 180 of thnses includeddid not, and 2

Public Engage

en House eve

e and timingts included:

w segments

roject ment Process

21

of the he 207 d, 151 25 did

ement

ents.

g) and

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

2. Respoto allo

Only 36 rthey woul

3. Askedfollow

M B F In E In U N O

In total, 3respondesheets, or

3.3.2.6

Respondefor further

3.3.2.7

Table 3-4own addit

Categorieevents, benvironme

For compconsiderinindicatingdeterminewere weigexample, was “Pubcategory wat 566. “R

Note thatAtmospheoverall tot


ondents wereow them to pa

espondents sd like; 59 said

d what other wing comment

More Detailed etter Locationinancial and C

nformation onMF/Health In

nformation froUpdates (3 resNotes/ConcernOther (8 respo

89 respondennts completer had partial s

Notification o

ents were pror details.)

Valued Comp

4 indicates hotions to the or

es of Valued Cbased on issuental assessm

parative purpng only the the highest l

e the Comparghted by facthe VC with

blic Safety anwith a score o

Resource Use

t the on-line eric Resourcetal of 442 resp

M


e asked if thearticipate as th

said they hadd they had no

information ts:

Information (n and Map InfCost Informat Compensatioformation (1 r

om Overall Pusponses) ns about Publonses)

nts had no coely filled out Csheets comple

of Project Upd

ompted to sig

ponents (VC)

ow respondenriginal list of 1

Components ues identifiedment conside

oses the Cotop 10 in levevel of concerative Rankingctors of 3, 2 the highest le

nd Human Hof 10, “Recre

e” with the ver

Comment Ses”. Results ponses. This

Manitoba Hydro


e Manitoba Hyhey would like

d received enoot, and 347 did

they would li

14 responsesformation (5 rtion (3 responon (4 responsresponses)

ublic Feedbac

lic Engageme

omments regaComment Sheted by Manit

dates

gn up for ema

nts rated thei6 Valued Co

were identified by Stakehorations.

omparative Rvels of concern, and the hg for each VCand 1, resp

evel of conceHealth” with a

ation and Toury highest Com

Sheets includfor this VC aVC could be


ydro project te.

ough informad not respond

ike to have r

s) responses) nses) ses)

ck (3 response

ent Process (1

arding the neheets. The retoba Hydro an

ail updates on

r levels of components (15

ed by the Proolder Groups

Ranking columcern, with thehighest numeC, responsespectively. Theern, and therea total weighurism” had a mparative Ra

ded one addare thereforeconsidered to

MS

x

team provided

ation from thed.

related to the

es)

10 responses

eed for other/aemaining 112nd consultant

n the project

oncern regard5 in the hard c

oject Team ins and the pu

mn considerse lowest numrical ranking,

s in the “High”e weighting fefore, a Comted level of significantly l

anking was 46

ditional VC, e based on 2o have a scor


d them with e

e Project Team

e project, res

s)

additional info2 submitted pt staff membe

(optional). (S

ding various Vcopy Comme

n advance of ublic in Roun

s the total scmerical “Com the lowest le”, “Medium” afor “No Concparative Ranconcern of 8lower weighte67.

indicated in 235 responsere in the top te


enough inform

m to participa

spondents ha

ormation. Onlpartially compers.

See Section 3

VC, includingent Sheets).

the Round 2nd 1, and ge

core for eachmparative Ranevel of conceand “Low” colcern” was “0”king or score878, while thed level of co

Table 3-4 aes rather thaen.

roject ment Process

22

mation

ate as

ad the

ly 291 pleted

3.2.1.3

g their

2 POH eneral

h VC, nking” rn. To lumns ”. For

e of 1, he VC oncern

as “A. an the




Table 3-4: Evaluation of Valued Components (from Comment Sheets) (Total of 442 Responses)

Categories of Valued Components

Number of Responses – Level of Concern

Comparative Ranking (Top 10) No

Concern Low (x1)

Medium (x2)

High (x3)

Natural Environment

A. Atmospheric Resources* NR 12 24 27 35 109 *

B. Groundwater Resources NR 96 76 63 63 144 8

C. Fish; Fish Habitat NR 95 84 93 78 92

D. Wildlife (Birds, Mammals, Reptiles) NR 86 51 50 80 175 5

E. Vegetation and Wetlands NR 97 50 55 84 156 6

Built Environment

F. Public Safety and Human Health NR 94 25 21 49 253 1

G. Aesthetics NR 109 33 42 68 190 3

H. Property and Residential Development NR 94 27 25 56 240 2

I. Recreation and Tourism NR 114 61 74 87 106 10

J. Agricultural Land Use NR 100 32 63 68 179 4

K. Livestock Operations NR 105 47 67 68 155 7

L. Infrastructure and Services (Lagoons, Roads, Landfills) NR 115

53 84 90 100

(Resource, part of Built)

M. Hunting, Trapping and Fishing NR 116 75 76 78 97

N. Traditional Land and Resource Use NR 121 53 65 85 118 9

O. Heritage Resources (e.g. Archaeological) NR 119 72 91 84 76

P. Resource Use (Forestry, Mining and Aggregate Extraction) NR 120

80 92 75 75

Other:

Q. (No items identified) NA

*Based on 235 web survey responses.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.7.1

The top 1particularl

Built Envi

1. P2. P3. A4. A7. L10. R

The numbwas only Built Envi“Agricultu

Natural E

Atmospheoverall.

5. W6. V8. G

Resource

9. T

Resourcerank 16th.


Principal Con

0 VC, those wly related to c

ronment

ublic Safety aroperty and R

Aesthetics Agricultural La

ivestock Opeecreation and

ber of commebased on 23ronment. It sre”. The relat

nvironment

eric Resource

Wildlife (Birds,Vegetation andGroundwater R

e

raditional Lan

e Use (Forest

M


ncerns

with the higheconcerns relat

and Human HResidential De

nd Use rations d Tourism

ents related t5 versus 442hould be noteive response

es – note that

Mammals, Rd Wetlands Resources

nd and Resou

try, Mining an

Manitoba Hydro


est levels of cted to residen

Health evelopment

to atmospher2 responses. ed that the ofrequency of

t even with a

Reptiles)

urce Use

nd Aggregate


concern, fell pntial and agric

ic resources Natural Envirverall rating f

f the VC is gra

smaller numb

e Extraction)

MS

x

primarily into cultural land u

may be moreronment genefor “Wildlife” waphically indic

ber of respon

had the lowe


the Built Envuses, as follow

e significant terally rated sewas very closcated in Figur

dents this sti

est level of c


ironment catews:

than noted siecond place se to the ratire 3-1.

ll rated fairly

concern and w

roject ment Process

24

egory,

ince it to the ng for

highly

would

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.8

Table 3-5as identifi

VCs are tCommentwith existi

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Level of Concern (# of Responses)


Figure 3-1

Summary of

5 provides infoed for each o

those identifiet Sheet respoing transmiss

Atmosph

eric Resou

rces

Groun

dwater Resou

rces

Fish;Fish

Habitat

Natural EnV

M


1: Relative R

Concerns

ormation on tof the Alternat

ed in the Comonses that adion lines.

Fish; Fish

Habita

t

Wildlife (Bird

s, M

ammals, Rep

tiles)

Vegetatio

n and Wetland

s

nvironmentVC

Manitoba Hydro


Response Fre

the VC categtive Route Se

mment Sheetsddressed En

Public Safety and Hu

man

Health

Aesthe

tics

Prop

erty and

Residen

tial D

evelop

men

t

Built Envi

Valued Com


equency in V

ories and thegments.

s. In additiongineering an

Recreatio

n and To

urism

Agricultural Land Use

Livestock Ope

ratio

ns

ironment VC

mponents

MS

x

Valued Comp

e specific kind

, a number od Cost cons

Infrastructure and

Service

Hunting, Trapp

ing and Fishing

Tradition

al Land and Re

source Use

Built EnvVC ‐ Re


ponent Categ

ds of Concern

of additional ciderations, su

Heritage Re

sources

Resource Use

vironmentesource


gories

ns related to

categories reluch as co-loc

No Respons

No Concern

Low (x1)

Medium (x2

High (x3)

roject ment Process

25

each,

ate to cation

se

n

2)

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.8.1

Specific Cfollowing T

Route

Segment

200

200

200

201

201

201

201

201

201

201

201

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202


Specific Con

Concerns relTable 3-5 pro

Tab

t

Property & RDevelopmen

Public SafetHealth

Use Existing

Total - Segm


Public SafetHealth

Vegetation a

Wildlife

Recreation a

Use Existing

General

Multiple Exis

Total - Segm


Public SafetHealth

Vegetation a

Aesthetics

Wildlife

Hunting, TraFishing

Groundwate

Agricultural

Livestock Op

M


cerns

ated to eachovides a summ

ble 3-5: VC an

VC

Residential nt

ty and Human

g Corridor

ment 200

Residential nt

ty and Human

and Wetlands

and Tourism

g Corridor

sting Lines

ment 201

Residential nt

ty and Human

and Wetlands

apping and

er Resources

Land Use

peration

Manitoba Hydro


h Alternative mary of VC an

nd Specific Co

# of VC

Concern

2

2

1

5

7

1

2

1

1

2

5

2

21

22

8

4

4

2

1

1

3

1


Route Segmnd Concerns

oncerns by A

s

Proximity to

Family hea

Pipeline –

Follow exis

Proximity to

EMF

Pristine wil

Disruption

Affects are

Use existin

(Specific co

High conce

Removes/s

Prevents fu

Proximity to

Property va

EMF and h

Herbicides

Potential fo

Impacts (odisasters

ATV acces

Pristine wil

Cutting fore

Herbicides

Destroys fr

Park-like ya

Disruptive

Hunting

Potential fostructure

Interferes w

Livestock o

MS

x

ment are profor the entire

Alternative Ro

Concerns

o residences/p

alth risks

potential for ru

sting transmiss

o residences

lderness lot

to nature and w

ea used for bicy

ng corridor

oncerns not no

entration of pow

splits property/

uture developm

o residences

alue

health

s and health

or fires

n people and p

ss and vandalis

lderness lot

est

s adverse impa

rontage aesthe

ard

to nature and w

or aquifer conta

with farming op

operation


ovided in the e project.

ute Segment

s Details

property

pture and fire

sion line

wildlife

ycling and walk

oted)

wer lines

/affects propert

ment/subdivisio

property) from

sm

cts on ecosyst

etics and prope

wildlife

amination in an

perations


table below

#

Sp

Con

king

ty

on

natural

em

erty value

nchoring

roject ment Process

26

w. The

# of

pecific

ncerns

2

1

1

1

7

1

2

1

1

2

5

2

6

6

4

6

2

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

3

1




Route

Segment VC

# of VC

Concerns Concerns Details

# of

Specific

Concerns

202 General Concern 1 1

202 Existing/Multiple Lines 3 3

Total - Segment 202 50


31 Decrease in property value; compensation 10

Close to residence 8

Quality of life: destroying what we moved out of the city for; privacy

4

Splits property/Property affected 12

Affects frontages, going to subdivide 2


12 EMF and health 2

Effect on human health 5

Potential for fire 2

Herbicides and human health 1

Vandalism due to increased traffic 1

Noise 1

203 Vegetation and Wetlands 7 Rare species of plants 1

Evergreens 2

Cuts through too much forest 2

Private nature preserve 1

Herbicides affect local ecosystems 1

203 Wildlife 4 Access by ATVs and hunters Impacts from hunting

3

Effect on animals 1

203 Groundwater Resources 1 Aquifer damage due to anchoring of towers 1

203 Aesthetics 2 Eyesore, affects value 2

203 Agricultural Land Uses 1 Loss of acreage 1

203 Livestock Operations 3 Middle of pasture; livestock 3


1 Hunting 1

203 Existing/Multiple Lines 3 Already power line nearby 3



6 Proximity to property 4

Property values (compensation) 2

204 Aesthetics 1 Visually unappealing 1


3 Health concerns for children 1

Safety related to large machinery 1

Low ground; flooding and fire concerns 1

204 Agricultural Land Use 1 Organic farm; ATV trespassing concerns 1

204 Vegetation and Wetlands 1 Should not encroach on wetland wildlife habitat 1


1 Value prime hunting land 1

204 Existing/Multiple Lines 1 Already have a power line 1





Route

Segment VC

# of VC


# of

Specific

Concerns


39 Too close to residential/ Affects many families 18

Too close to town 2

Interferes with existing subdivision/residential expansion

7

Affects value of property 7

Runs through property 3

Close to business 1

Disrupts lifestyle 1

205 Aesthetics 11 Jumble of lines criss-crossing PTH #1 4

Aesthetic concerns 7


12 Health concerns for children/residents of Prairie Grove

9

Interference with pets 2

Public safety 1

205 Agricultural Land Use 4 Interference with excellent agricultural land 3

Don’t want near farm and home 1

205 Livestock Operations 4 Interference with livestock operations 3

Concerns about stray voltage 1

205 Vegetation and Wetlands 2 Natural environmental impacts 2

205 Wildlife 2 Interference with animals 2

205 Recreation and Tourism Future development (camper trailers) 1

Area used for bicycles and walking 1

205 Infrastructure and Services 2 PTH #1 – avoid transmission line crossings on highway

1

Crossing PTH #1 and major rail line 3 times 1

205 Routing 1 Follow existing Hydro line 1



6 Subdivision 3

Too close to buildings 1

Private land values 1

Yard 1

206 Resource Use 1 Peat plant 1

206 Vegetation and Wetlands 2 Changing the natural environment 1

Wetland wildlife habitats 1

206 Cost 1 Cost of line 1



2 Further away from populated areas 2


3 Health concern 1

Forest fire concern 1

ATV encroachment 1

207 Vegetation and Wetlands/ Fish and Fish Habitat

1 Too close to Pocock Lake ER 1

207 Wildlife 1 Wildlife area 1




Route

Segment VC

# of VC


# of

Specific

Concerns

207 Groundwater Resources 1 Herbicide use in an areas where there are many natural springs

1



23 Too close to Town of La Broquerie, schools and residential

11

Too close to many residences/ Too densely populated between Ste. Anne and La Coulee

7

Too close to home 4

Using my property as a corridor 1

Affects future subdivisions 2

Property value 2

208 Aesthetics 1 Eyesore for new development 1

208 Recreation and Tourism 1 Golf course (La Broquerie) 1

208 Wildlife 1 Interferes with animals 1

208 Vegetation and Wetlands 2 Interferes with natural environment (bog) 2


8 Negative impact on human life/Health concerns 4

EMF and health 1

Noise from lines 1

Safety concern for children 1

ATV encroachment 1

208 Agricultural Land Uses 5 Will take away valuable farmland 3

Crosses land 1

Aerial spraying and farmland 1

208 Livestock Operations 1 Interference with pets and livestock 1

208 Groundwater Resources 1 Over Sandilands Aquifer 1

208 Infrastructure and Services 1 Not close to PR 302



1 Bisects property 1


1 Fencing and ATV access 1

209 Resource Use 2 Quarry operation and quarry rights 1

Loss of cordage (woodlot) 1

209 Infrastructure and Servicing 1 Close to community cemetery 1

209 Wildlife 1 Wildlife in bogs and marshes 1

209 Groundwater Resources 1 Over Sandilands Aquifer 1



4 Too close 4

210 Aesthetics 1 Want greater visual separation 1

210 Cost 2 Construct a direct route - keep the line straight 2


211 Cost 1 Make route a straight line 1


AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.9

Table 3-6for each o

Alternativ

Route

Segment

200

201

201

201

201 201 201

201 201 201 201

202

202 202 202 202 202

203 203

204 204


Summary of

, below, provof the Alternat

Table

ve

t V

Total - Seg

Property & Developme

Aesthetics

Public SafeHuman Hea

Recreation Tourism Agriculture Livestock O

Vegetation Wetlands Follows Ex

General Adjust

Total - Seg

Property anResidentialDevelopme


Aesthetics

Agricultural

General Existing/Mu

Total - Seg


General

Total - Seg


Livestock O

M


Preferences

vides informattive Route Se

e 3-6: VC and

VC

gment 200

Residential ent

ety and alth and

Operations and

isting Lines

gment 201

nd l ent ety and alth l Land Uses

ultiple Lines

gment 202

nd l ent

gment 203

nd l ent Operations

Manitoba Hydro


tion on the spegments.

d Specific Pre

Number

0

13

Less

Not

Doe

4

With

Not

4 Less

1 Furt

2 Doe

2 Furt

1 Land

2 Follo

10 Pref

1 Exte

40

5

Prox

Prop

Leas

1 Hea

2 Prop

1 No i

2 Gen

2 Follo

13

4

Not

Doe

Cov

1 Pref

5

1 Take

1 Take


pecific types o

eferences by A

Sp

s people, least

as close to my

s not interfere

h existing lines,

next to main h

s human health

her from recrea

s not interfere

her from dairy

d along highwa

ows existing lin

fer/No concerns

end further eas

ximity to proper

perty values

st number of ho

lth

perty on highwa

nterference wit

nerally prefer

ow existing line

where building

s not run throu

ers more agric

ference

es it away from

es it away from

MS

x

of Preference

Alternative R

pecific Prefere

number of hom

y home and pro

with residentia

, less visual im

ighway; limits P

h concerns/Fur

ational trails in

with agriculture

farm/animals

ays does not re

nes

s

st to Vivian

rty

omes affected

ay

th agriculture

e more closely

g house

ugh subdivision

cultural land

m my property

m my livestock


es, organized

Route Segmen

ences

mes on route operty

al development

pact

PTH crossings

rther from our h

Prairie Grove e

equire clearing

n


by VC categ

nt

Num

t

s

home

1

roject ment Process

30

gories,

mber

8

3

2

2

2

4

1

2

1

1

2

10

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1




Alternative

Route

Segment VC Number Specific Preferences Number

204 General 1 Preference 1


205

Property and Residential Development 13

Affects fewer homeowners 3

Won’t interfere with future subdivision 3

Impacts community least 2

Doesn’t cross property 3

Property values 2

205 Infrastructure and Servicing 11

Crown Land along highway 2

Follows existing infrastructure 6

Easier access for repair and maintenance 2

Cheaper to build, less land to clear 1

205 Vegetation and Wetlands 4 Less environmental impact; less interruption of forest 4

205 Wildlife 1 Bird and animal habitat 1

205 Follow Existing Infrastructure 1 Follows PTH# 1, already cleared 1

205 Cost 1 Shorter route 1

205 General 2 Prefer 2


206

Property and Residential Development 1 Fewer residents 1


206 Other 1 Prefer previous alignments (Round 1) 1


207


Passes through less populated areas 14

Further from residence/land 3

Less effect on Town of La Broquerie (vs Segment 208) 5

Won’t affect subdivision 4

Avoids reducing property values 2

Not close to school and golf course 3

Put it where there are trees 1

207 Aesthetics 2 Won’t have visual impact 2

207 Public Safety and Human Health 7

Doesn’t affect human life, health 3

Avoids EMF concerns 1

Safety concern for children 1

Buzzing noise 1

Keeps quad traffic out of residential area 1

207 Agricultural Land Use 10

Doesn’t interfere with aerial spraying operations 2

Doesn’t interfere with farmland use 8

207 Livestock 3

Won’t affect health of cattle 1

Does not interfere with livestock 2

207 Recreation and Tourism 2 Will create recreation routes for bikers, cyclists, ATVs 2




Alternative

Route

Segment VC Number Specific Preferences Number

207 Existing Multiple Lines 1 Closer to existing lines 1

207 Other 7 Prefer 7


208 Vegetation and Wetland 7

Use developed area versus wilderness; further from Watson P Davidson Wildlife Reserve and Pocock Lake ER; less forest removal 7

208 Wildlife 3 Fewer trails for ATVs and hunters 3

208 Groundwater Resources 1

Concerned about herbicide use: area with many natural springs 1

208

Property and Residential Development 1 Further away from property 1

208 General 1 Located farther away 1


209 Total - Segment 209 0

210 Hunting, Trapping and Fishing 1 Hunting 1

210 Public Safety and Human Health 1 Ground patrol 1

210 General 1 Further east 1


211


Keeps the line away from private lands on uninhabited Crown Land 2

More west 1

211 Aesthetics 1 Greater visual separation 1

211 Agricultural Land Use 1 No agriculture, impacts on spraying operations 1

211 General (Cost) 1 More direct route 1


The following table summarizes all Preferences according to Valued Components and detailed Preferences from Comment Sheets. Typically the list of Preferences is somewhat the reverse of Concerns.

The following table summarizes all Concerns according to Valued Component Categories and detailed concerns from Comment Sheets.

Table 3-7: Summary of Concerns and Preferences by VC Category

Valued Components

Detailed Concerns Number of Concerns

Detailed Preferences Number of Preferences

Natural Environment

A. Atmospheric Resources*

None None

B. Groundwater Resources

B1. Tower Anchoring: Effect on Aquifer

2 B1. Herbicide Use in Area with Many Natural Springs (Other Segment)

1




Valued Components



B2. Herbicide Use in an Area with Many Natural Springs

1

B3. Over Sandilands Aquifer

2

C. Fish; Fish Habitat

C1. Pocock Lake ER 1 C1. Pocock Lake ER 1

D. Wildlife (Birds, Mammals, Reptiles)

D1. Access (Hunters and ATVs) and Wildlife Impacts

3 D1. Less Disruptive to Wildlife Impacts/Fewer ATV Trails

3

D2. Disruption of Wildlife 9

E. Vegetation and Wetlands

E1. Disruption of Wilderness/Evergreens (2) /Natural Environment/Wetlands/Cutting Forest (3)

11 E1. Less Disruption of Wilderness /Natural Environment/Wetlands

3

E2. Impacts of Herbicides on Natural Ecosystems

2 E2. Use Developed Areas versus Wilderness Environmental Reserve

7

E3. Impacts on Rare/ Endangered Plant Species

1

E4. Wild Growth Area* 1

E5. Pristine Natural Lot 5

Built Environment

F. Public Safety and Human Health

F1. EMF and Health 6 F1. Avoids EMF 1

F2. Family /Children’s Health Affects

22 F2. Fewer Health Concerns 8

F3. Pipeline Crossing (potential rupture)

1 F3. Avoids Buzzing Noise 1

F4. Potential effects of Herbicides on Human Health

2 F4. Makes Sense for Ground Patrol 1

F5. Potential for Forest Fires

5 F5 Safety concern for kids 1

F6. Impacts on People and Property with Natural Disasters

1 F6. Less Quad/ATV Traffic in Residential Areas

2

F7. ATV Access and Vandalism

6

F8. Constant Buzzing Noise

2

F9. Safety with Large Machinery

1

F10. Public Safety 1

F11 Pets Health 2

G. Aesthetics G1. Park-like Yard 1 G1. Less Visual Impact/Pollution 4

G2. Impact on Perception of Prairie Landscape: PTH #1

4 G2. Not Next to PTH #1 4

G3. Eyesore / Want Greater Visual Separation

6 G3. Want Greater Visual Separation 1

G4. Aesthetic Concerns 7




Valued Components



H. Property and Residential Development

H1. Proximity to Residences

50 H1. Less People/ Least Homes Affected/Unpopulated Wooded Area/Crown Land/Put Where There Are More Trees Than Houses/More Agricultural Than Residential

30

H2. Proximity to Town/Community/Populated Areas

14 H2. Less Impact on My Home/Property

8

H3. Proximity to Business 1 H2. Proximity to La Broquerie 5

H4. Impact on Property Values (Compensation)

27 H3. Not Close to School/Golf Course 3

H5. Affects Quality of Life/Lifestyle

5 H4. Less Impact on Property Values 3

H6. Splits Property 10 H5. Less Impact on Existing/Future Residential Development

8

H7. Prevents Future Development/ Residential Expansion

22

H8. Affects Many Families/Dense Population

14

I. Recreation and Tourism

I1. Areas for Cycling and Walking

2 I1. Further from Recreational Trails 1

I2. Interferes with Future Recreational Development

1 I2. Will Create Recreational Trails for Bikers, ATVs and Cyclists

2

I3. Crosses Golf Course 1

J. Agricultural Land Use

J1. Interferes with Farming Operations

4 J1. Crown Lands/ Avoids Agriculture /Does Not Interfere with Agriculture

11

J2. Reduces Area for Cultivation on Valuable Agricultural Land

6 J2. Avoids Aerial Application Concerns 3

J3. Organic Farming Impacted by ATV Access

1

J4. Aerial Application 1

K. Livestock Operations

K1. Livestock Operations 3 K1. Further from Dairy Farm 1

K2. Pasture 3

K3. Dairy Farm 1

K4. Runs Through Cattle Pens

1

K5. Stray Voltage Concerns

1

L. Infrastructure and Services (Lagoons, Roads, Landfills)

L1. Don’t Want Line Close to PR 302

1 L1. Travels Along Existing Man-made Infrastructure/Cheaper to Build, Less Clearing/Easier to Repair and Maintain

9

L2. Crosses Highway and Rail Line

1 L2. Crown Land/Prairie Along Highway 2

L3. Avoid Crossing PTH #1 1

L4. Crosses Cemetery 1

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

ValuCompo

Resource

M. HuntiTrappFishin

N. TradiLandReso

O. HeritaReso(e.g. Archa)

P. Reso(ForeMininAggreExtra

EngineerinCost

Q. FollowTransLine

R. High Concof Po

S. Cost

T. AdjusAlign

U. GeneAlternRouteSegm

Total

*Note: PubliSegment(s).

Overall, a

3.3.2.9.1

RespondeManitoba-The frequthe Altern

The overawere not w

Lo M H V


ued onents

ing, ping and ng

ML

itional and

ource Use

N

age ources

aeological

N

ource Use estry, ng and egate

action)

PL

P

P

ng and

w Existing smission Corridor

QM

centration ower Lines

RHE

S

st ment

eral - This native e

ment

l

ic feedback provi.

approximately

Concerns an

ent concerns -Minnesota T

uencies of VCative Route S

all Ranking foweighted.

ow Medium High Very High

M


Detailed Co

M1. Value PrimLand

None

None

P1. Runs ThrouLands

P2. Peat Plant

P3. Loss of Cor

Q1. Follow ExisManitoba Hydro

R1. Multiple MaHydro TransmisExisting and Pla

S.1 Maintain St

ided is related to

half as many

d Preference

and preferenTransmission C and numbeSegments.

or Level of Co

0 to 20 Con21 to 45 46 to 70 71+

Manitoba Hydro


oncerns

e Hunting

ugh Quarry

rdage

sting o Corridor

anitoba ssion Lines anned

raight Line

o the St. Vital Tra

y Preferences

es for Alternat

nces regardinProject werers of related

oncerns set th

ncerns


Number of Concerns

3

1

1

1

4

9

4

6

315

ansmission Comp

s were receive

tive Route Se

ng the 12 Alte categorized Concerns an

hresholds for

MS

x

Det

M1. Not in

None

None

None

Q1. Follow Corridor

R1. Closer

S.1 Shorter

T1. Go Fur1) Alignme

Note Segm

plex and is not as

ed as Concer

gments

ternative Rouinto VC con

nd Preference

low, medium


tailed Prefere

Bog

Existing Manit

to Existing Lin

r Route

rther East/Prevnt

ment 201 (10) a

ssociated with th

rns.

ute Segmentssistent with t

es are shown

m, high and ve


ences

toba Hydro

e

vious (Round

and 207 (7)

he MMTP Alterna

s proposed fothose in Tabln below for ea

ery high. Con

roject ment Process

35

Number oPreference

1

3

1

3

2

26

159

ative Route

or the e 3.2. ach of

ncerns

of es

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.9.2

Route Seg

200 201 202 203 204 205 206

207 208 209 210 211

The AlterSegments

The overPreferenc

V Lo M H V

3.3.2.9.3

Route

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

The AlternSegments


Total Numbe

gment No. of

rnative Routes 203 and 202

rall Ranking ces were not w

Very Low ow

Medium High Very High

Total Numbe

Segment

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

native Route s 201 and 205

M


er of Concerns

f VC Categorie

2 5 9 9 6 9 3

5 10 6 2 0

e Segment w2.

for Level of weighted.

0 1 to 10 Pre11 to 25 26 to 50 51+

er of Preferenc

Table 3-8:

No. of VC

Categories 0 7 4 1 2 4 1 6 5 0 2 3

Segment wit5.

Manitoba Hydro


s by Alternati

es No. o

Conc

ith the highe

Preferences

ferences

ces by Altern

Number of P

No. of S

Preferen

0

2

9

4

2

2

1

5

1

0

2

5

th the highes


ve Route Seg

of Specific

cerns (VC) 4

12 46 62 13 79 9

8 44 7 5 0

st number of

set thresho

ative Route S

Preferences

Specific

nces (VC) 0

27 9 4 2

29 1

56 2 0 2 5

st number of

MS

x

gment

No. of Oth

f Concerns w

olds for low,

Segment

by Route Se

No. of Othe

Preferences

0 13 4 1 1 4 2

8 1 0 1 1

Preferences


her Concerns

1 9 4 3 1 1 1

0 0 0 2 1

was Segmen

medium, hig

egment

er

s (Level

Very Lo

High Medium

Low Low High Low

Very H

Medium

Very Lo

Low Low

was Segmen


Ranking

(Level of Con

Low Medium High High Low Very High

Low

Low Medium Low Low Low

t 205, followe

gh and very

Ranking l of Preference

ow

m

igh m ow

nt 207, follow

roject ment Process

36

g ncern)

ed by

high.

e)

wed by




The total Concerns and Preferences for each Alternative Route Segment are compared in Table 3-9 below.

Table 3-9: Alternative Route Segment Scores from Comment Sheets

Alternative

Route

Segment Total Concerns Total Preferences Score Notes/Interpretation

200 5 - Low 0 – Very Low -5 Minimal concern

201 21 - Medium 40 - High +19 Preference

202 50 - High 13 - Medium -37 Moderate concern

203 65 - High 5 - Low -60 High concern - Good correlation

204 14 - Medium 3 – Low -11 Concern

205 80 – Very High 33 -High -47 Moderate to high concern

206 10 - Low 3 - Low -7 Minimal concern

207 8 - Low 64 – Very High +56 High preference - Good correlation

208 43 - Medium 14 - Medium -29 Moderate concern (207 preferred)

209 7 - Low 0 – Very Low -7 Minimal concern

210 7 - Low 3 – Low -4 Minimal concern

211 1 – Low 6 - Low +5 Minimal preference

Interpretation of results was based on the following thresholds (number of Preferences minus number of Concerns):

Minimal Concern Low /Low or Very Low with negative score less than -10 Concern Medium/Low with a negative score of -10 to -25 Moderate Concern Medium/Medium or High/ Medium with score more than -25 Moderate to High Concern Very High/High High Concern High/ Low with a score more than -50 Minimal Preference Low/Low with positive score with a score of less than +10 Preference Medium/High with a score from +10 to +25 High Preference Low/Very High with a score of more than +25

Based on a review of the above thresholds:

One obvious result suggested by the above comparison would be to use Alternative Route Segment 207 instead of Segment 208.

The choice between routes using Segments 202 and 203 versus those using Segment 205 are less clear, since both alternatives have a significant number of Concerns.

Segment 201 has a good score overall but this is based on having the second highest preferences despite a medium level of concern.

Segment 206 has a low level of concern. There seems to be a preference for Alternative Route Segment 211 over Segment 210, although

the latter has a low level of concerns. Generally Segments 200, 209 and 211 have minimal concerns or are preferred.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

3.3.2.10

Respondethe Altern

The sites follows (a

R S F E W S M G H O B F G W La La S A D

AlternativRoute

SegmenNumbe

200

201

201

201*

202


Specific Sites

ents were askative Route S

identified fors noted by re

Residential proubdivisions aorest and wetndangered w

Wildlife along Seine River Co

Maintained waGoose stagingHeritage tree aOld cemetery a

usiness alongarmland with

Groundwater cWatson P. Dav

a Verendrye Ga Broquerie achools (2) alo

Airstrip on SegDeer, turtle, bir

Table

ve

nt r

Sites

South portion of Segment 201

Along PTH#1

Segments not shown on the old aerial mapon Hydro website.

M


s and Constra

ked about anySegments.

r each Alternaspondents):

operty constraalong Segmentlands along S

wildlife includinSegments 20onservation D

alking trails alog area along Salong Segmenalong Segmeg Segment 20aerial sprayin

concerns alonvidson WildlifeGolf Course aalong Segmenong Segment gment 208/Rurd habitat on

e 3-10: Altern

VC

Wildlife

Property ResidentiDevelopm

H Infrastrucand Serv Public Saand HumHealth

p

Property ResidentiDevelopm

Manitoba Hydro


aints

y specific site

ative Route S

aints on varionts 201 and 2Segments 20ng Sandhill C2 and 203

District Projectong SegmentSegment 205nt 205 nt 205; comm05 ng along Segng Segment 2e Refuge alonalong Segment 208 208

unway along SSegment 209

native Route S

C

Enda

& ial

ment

Manywantthrou

cture ices

afety an

Railwrailw

& ial

ment

Segmresid


es that Manito

Segment are

us segments05, and 208

01 ranes along S

t along Segmt 203

munity cemete

ment 205 207 ng Segment 2nt 208

Segment 2119

Segment Sco

Con

angered Sandh

y private residet a large transmugh their yards

way along PTHay and a trans

ment 202 signifdential property

MS

x

oba Hydro sh

described be

Segments 20

ment 203

ery on Segme

207

ores from Com

nstraints

hill cranes nest

ences. People mission line run.

H #1: concern ifmission line co

ficantly damagy.


hould be awar

elow. Particu

1, 202 and 20

ent 208

mment Sheets

t here.

do not nning

f the onnect.

es our


re of along ea

lar issues we

03

s

No. of Responses

0

2

2

1

3

roject ment Process

38

ach of

ere as

Segment Total

0

5

9




Alternative Route

Segment Number

Sites VC Constraints No. of

Responses Segment

Total

202 SW 22-9-7E Property & Residential Development

Subdivision with four 5000 sq. ft. homes. 1

202 All along this Segment

Vegetation and Wetlands Wildlife

Wetlands, forests and wildlife. 2

202 Along the south portion of Segment

Wildlife Endangered Sandhill cranes nest here. 3

203 1-9-6E RM of Tache


Segment significantly damages our residential property.

3 16


Maintained walking trails. 2

203 NE-20-9-7E Vegetation and Wetlands

Property owner is guardian of his land: keeping it as pristine as possible.

1


Wetlands and forests all along this route. 3

203 NE-17-9-7E Vegetation and Wetlands

Seine-Rat River Conservation District has ongoing project.

2

203 Fish Creek Fish and Fish Habitat

Seine-Rat River Conservation District has ongoing project /Creek with surrounding forested areas.

3

203 Wildlife Home to vast wildlife. 3

203 Wildlife Endangered species in the area. 1

204 0

205 SW 32-95E (2)

Property & Residential Land Uses

Property 1 13

205 Just 1/4 mile north of Segment, Corner of Prairie Grove Road and Dawson Road

Infrastructure and Services

Old cemetery 1

205 Corner of Prairie Grove Rd. and Dawson Rd.

Recreation and Tourism

Community park for children. 1

205 1/2 mile north of PTH #1 on PR 206 on west side

Heritage Resources

Heritage tree: would not like to lose it. 1




Alternative Route

Segment Number


Responses Segment

Total

205 East of PR 206 to Dugald and to Rd 29 on south side of railway tracks, South of PTH #1.


Farmer grows sunflowers; aerial spraying is used.

1

205 Section 1-9-6E RM of Tache


Home and property. 1

205 Line between NW-35-94E and SW-35-94-E (east of Dawson Rd.)

Livestock Operations

Cattle property. 1


Wildlife Resting area for migratory geese. 1


Vegetation and Wetlands

Wetland that isn't farmed. 1

205 Section 26-9-4E lot 1


Single family dwelling. 1


Continue to green land. 1

205 Section 3-9-6-E, (where Bipole III is planned!)


Segment runs very close to our business. 1

205 Section 34-9-4E


Residential development. 1

206 0

207 Near railway between Marchand and Sandilands

Groundwater Resources

Concerned about herbicide use in an area where there are many springs.

3

207 Wildlife Refuge

Wildlife Will pass very close to the Watson P Davidson Wildlife Refuge.

1




Alternative Route

Segment Number


Responses Segment

Total

208 On Gosselin and Quintro Roads


La Verendrye Golf Course. 3 18

208 (+) Town of La Broquerie; north of the golf course


Too close to development in the Town of La Broquerie.

5

208 Lot on NE-17-6-8-E.


Want to build my retirement home but Segment 208 will remove half of my evergreens and my fish pond. My property will be devalued.

1

Lot on NE-17-6-8-E.

Public Safety and Human Health

My house will be too close to the magnetic field.

1

208 Town of La Broquerie


Two schools within a mile of this segment. Safety for our children. Children are curious and no matter what they still may think of climbing.

1

208 Town of La Broquerie;


Valuable farm land around there. 2

208 Agricultural Land Uses

I will have to avoid 4 pylons. 1

208 Fish and Fish Habitat

Small creek running through our property /Seine River runs through segment.

2

208 East of Segment 208; exact location not known.


Airstrip 1

209 Wildlife Deer, turtle, bird habitat. 1 2


Ridgeland Community Cemetery. 1

210 Property & Residential Land Uses

People live right in that spot. 1 2


Spruce woods. 1


Runway. 1 2

211 NE-9-1-11-E, west of Piney


Segment runs through property. 1

General Economic The east versus the west side of Lake Winnipeg, the cost for Manitobans will be much too high. I believe the US will produce their own power in the future and will not need us so we will be stuck with the high cost of electricity.

1

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

AlternativRoute

SegmenNumbe

General

3.3.2.11

Respondepotential n

Key strate

Table 3-1Alternative

AlternRoute S

Num20

20


ve

nt r

Sites

Mitigation of

ents were asknegative effec

egies propose

Relocate tPrefer/UseUse an AltUse an AltRelocate toRelocate liRelocationRelocationLine shoulBury or relAvoid beinAvoid farmBuy out/coUse large Avoid haviFollow exisLine shoulStraight linShorter rouStay awayAvoid foresSize of tow

11 provides e Route Segm

native egment

mber

No

00 S InS

00 RAwC

M


VC

Property &ResidentiaLand Uses

Potential Effe

ked if they hacts or enhanc

ed for mitigati

he transmissie this Segmenternative Segternative Rouo Crown Landine away from

n line away fron line to municd run in unpoocate line

ng close to homland ompensation farmland ng multiple linsting hydro lind not run diag

ne ute

y from woodedst and natura

wers close to

a summary ment.

T

otes/Categor

ize of Towers

nfrastructure anervices

Relocate Line way from ommunity

Manitoba Hydro


C

& al s

Homproje

ects

ad any recommcing positive e

on, generally

ion line/Alternnt (versus Altement (Roundte Segment td

m pipeline corom communitcipal land

opulated areas

omes

nes in a smalne(s) gonally

d areas al lands/Ecolothe height of

of mitigatio

Table 3-11: M

ry Mitigatio

nd

Oak Bluffclose in sinfrastruct

Move the Oak Bluff


Con

es and lives thect along the en

mendations foeffects of the

, included the

native Route Sernative Segm 2) hat was forme

rridor ty

s away from P

l area

gical Areas existing towe

on recommen

Mitigation Ap

on Approach

f. As long as theize and specifiture there shou

line further wef, especially the

MS

x

nstraints

at will be affecntire route.

or Manitoba HProject.

e following:

Segment to nment)

erly proposed

PTH #1

ers

ndations from

proaches

hes

e new infrastrucations to exisuldn't be any is

est/south of thee school.


cted by this

Hydro regard

new alignmen

d in Round 1

m POH Com

ucture is relativsting ssues.

e community of


No. of Responses

1

ing minimizin

t

mment Shee

TotRespo

vely 6

f

roject ment Process

42

Segment Total

ng any

ets by

al nses




Alternative Route Segment

Number

Notes/Category Mitigation Approaches Total Responses


200 Relocate Line Away from TCP Corridor Infrastructure and Services

Move the line away from the TransCanada Pipeline corridor.

200 Follow Existing Hydro Line

This segment should follow the existing high voltage line that already travels through the region. (3 Comments)

201 Follow Existing Hydro Line Property & Residential Land Uses

Use this segment and follow existing transmission lines. Put it where Hydro already owns the land! Instead of Segment 205, Hydro owns the land and existing towers. Least disruptive to land owners. (4 Comments)

8

201 Relocate Line Where Crossing the City of Winnipeg's Aqueduct Property & Residential Land Uses

Move Segment 200 metres east where it crosses the City of Winnipeg's aqueduct to avoid crossing my land and instead travel down the municipal land on the adjacent Quarter.

201

Relocate Segment Property & Residential Land Uses Agricultural Land Uses

Run further east and then turning south where there is no risk of going through private homes/yards/farms. Follow Segment 201 and let it go into the dotted line section. (2 Comments)

201 Prefer Segment Recommend using Segment 201 as the way to go for MMTP.

202 Follow Existing Hydro Line Property & Residential Land Uses

Follow the existing line closely to minimize further disruption to other properties. (2 Comments)

9

202 Relocate Line Infrastructure and Services Property & Residential Land Uses

Run the line down the West side of PTH #12. This will avoid over 50 residential properties. There are only 3 residential properties between Richland Rd and PTH #1. Towers will affect farmland only. Farmers still have use of the land and get paid a reasonable amount for the use of their land.

202 Use Alternative Routes from Round 1

Alternative routes need to be considered as Segments 202 and 203 destroy numerous private lands and residences. Moving east, with routes as discussed in





Number



previous Round 1 would significantly decrease the impact of residential properties. (2 Comments)

202 Line Should Not Run Diagonally

Should not run diagonally through the property.

202 Avoid Multiple Lines in Small Area

This segment should not create a triangle with so many Hydro lines within a small area to minimize potential effects.

202 Relocate to Crown Land Property & Residential Land Uses

More it to Crown Land, east.

202 Stay away from wooded areas. Vegetation and Wetlands

Stay away from wooded areas.

203 Avoid being close to homes Property & Residential Land Uses

Run the line where it is not within 2-3 miles of homes.

13

203 Use Farmland Property & Residential Land Uses

Put the line where it is away from people. Use farm land that is already open. We have farmland. (2 Comments)

203 Use Alternative Segment Property & Residential Land Uses

Go down Segment 205. Affecting many less homes and lives.

203 Relocate Segment for Access Property & Residential Land Uses

The segment could at least go at the rear of my property (maybe a 100 foot difference) so you are not cutting off access to even more of my property than needed if this segment is chosen.

203 Use Alternative Segment

Continue on Segment 201 east along existing line.

203 Relocate Segment Property & Residential Land Uses

Run the line down the West side of PTH #12. This will avoid over 50 residential properties. There are only 3 residential properties between Richland Rd and PTH #1. Towers will affect farmland only. Farmers still have use of the land and get paid a reasonable amount for the use of their land.

203 Develop Alternative Route

Alternative routes need to be considered for this area so as to not destroy and depreciate residential homes and private land. Alternative routes need to be considered as Segments 202 and 203 destroy





Number



numerous private lands and residences. The alternative route to the north east of Segment 202 and 203 would not affect landowners and residential areas so drastically. (2 Comments)

203 Straight Line Property & Residential Land Uses

Power lines should continue in a straight line, rather than detouring east, and then north (directly over our house and property), and then heading west to rejoin the initial route.

203 Avoid Multiple Lines in Small Area

This segment should not create a triangle with so many hydro lines within a small area to minimize potential effects.

203 Stay Away from Wooded Areas. Vegetation and Wetlands

Stay away from wooded areas.

203 Prefer Other Segment

Prefer Segment on the east side of road east of 203.

204 Relocate Line Move the segment farther east on the chain of ridges. 1

205 Follow Existing Highway/ Straight Line Property & Residential Land Uses

This segment should follow number PTH #1 instead of doing a jog through residential property north of the highway. Loss of 9 sq. m. per pole; highway access, open, few problems or concerns about theft, no extra traffic /Parallel existing highways. Try to route along a straight line. (4 Comments)

16

205 Keep Line in Unpopulated Areas and Away from PTH #! Property & Residential Land Uses Aesthetics (Highway)

This segment should be as far away from residential areas - should be in unpopulated areas i.e. swamps/fields. This segment should not even be placed along PTH #1 for aesthetics.

205* Bury or Re-route Line Property & Residential Land Uses

Bury proposed lines through Sage Creek community or re-route around it.

205 Use Open Land Open land can build quickly. Open area to develop; great access.

205 Use Alternative Segment – Follow Existing Hydro Line Property & Residential Land Uses

This segment would not be anywhere near other lines and would diminish the country feel of our community. Segment 201 (at points) follows existing lines, so would be less disturbing.





Number


205 Straight Line Property & Residential Land Uses

Power lines should continue in a straight line, rather than detouring east, and then north (directly over our house and property), and then heading west to rejoin the initial route.

205 Straight Line/ Relocate Line

You could run the line straight southwards from the west side of Winnipeg. Avoid Morris and go to an angle to the south border.

205 Buy-out/ Compensation

Buy out the neighbour on the segment; rather not have a jog in the line just to avoid my property. Should get compensation if within a certain radius.

205 Use Alternative Segment

I strongly believe because of the concerns stated previously, that the best route would be Segment 201. Push the alternative route for Segment 205 (which runs, for a large portion, a mile east of Poirier Rd) to another couple of miles east. (2 Comments)

205 Shorter Route Shorter route.

205 Avoid Segment 205 Property & Residential Land Uses Aesthetics

Segment 205 is NOT suitable as it will be near all kinds of homes, businesses and roads. Aesthetically poor also.

205 Follow Existing Hydro Line Vegetation and Wetlands

Hydro should use existing Hydro easements wherever possible and minimize disturbance to forested areas.

206 Use Alternative Route Segment

Use Segment 207 instead. 4

206 Relocate Segment Property & Residential Land Uses

This segment should follow the West section boundary of SW 2-9-7 E, instead of running through the middle; west part is marginal land and farther from homes; affects fewer property owners /Go further east of this new development. (3 Comments)

207 Prefer This Segment

Follow this route. /Less human impact on this segment. /We recommend this segment. /Segment 207 is a good alternative to Segment 208. (4 Comments)

13

207 Avoid Populated Areas Follow Existing Transmission Lines Property & Residential Land Uses

Go even further from the high density population and follow where previous power lines have went.





Number


207 Use of Transmission Line Corridor For Trails Recreation and Tourism

Allow ATV and snow mobile association to use /Work with snowmobile association to make this a sno-pass trail. (2 Comments)

207 Follow Existing Hydro Line Avoid Residential Areas Property & Residential Land Uses Public Safety and Human Health

The line should continue to run alongside the existing transmission line instead of running through a new area. It would protect hundreds of homes from being constantly radiated with EMF's from this new line since you wouldn't be building it in areas which are highly developed and already have a substantial population. The further away from communities/towns, the better for our children.

207 Follow Existing Hydro Line Avoid Forest and Natural Lands/ Ecological Areas Vegetation and Wetlands

The line should continue to run alongside the existing transmission line instead of running through a new area (between the Wildlife Management Area and PR 404), where trees have to be cut down and new roads have to be made in order to make it accessible. It would then prevent any damages or potential adverse effects to the Watson P Davidson Wildlife Management Area and the Pocock Lake Ecological Reserve. It would save money, and trees and natural wildlife habitats because the roads are already established from the existing lines; so it would minimize the impact on the environment and save tremendous costs./ Try their best to avoid the forest and natural lands. (2 Comments)

207 Prefer This Segment – Uses Crown Land Recreation and Tourism Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

Route 207 is far better and cheaper because it goes through mostly Crown Land; it becomes a recreational access to Crown Land and hunting. (2 Comments)

207 New Location Property & Residential Land Uses

Construct the line where nobody has land or houses that would be affected.

208 Relocate Line Property & Residential Land Uses

Whole segment should just be moved away from the higher populated areas/ Not pass near la Broquerie as too near schools, farms, over housing developments. (2 Comments)

6

208 Low Land/Fire Hazard

Some low land and fire (hazard) - peat moss.

208 Prefer Alternative Segment

Instead of Segment 208, which passes too close to La Broquerie; use 207, which is away from homes.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

AlternRoute S

Num

20

20

20

21

21

21

*Note: PubliRoute Segm

3.3.2.12

Other gen

P

E

3.3.2.13

The Genattendeesroute pref

A numbeHydro’s fu

Informatiocategories

P


native egment

mber

No

PRU

08 PS AU

08 PS PRU

09

0

1 PS

1 PS PRU

ic feedback proviment(s).

General Con

neral issues id

roperty & Reso Use Co “Get a

conomic o Don’t g

never

General Com

eral Commes, both positivferences. A to

r of responduture plans. S

on from the Gs:

ositive comm

M


otes/Categor

roperty & Residential Land

ses

refer Alternativegment

gricultural Landses

refer This egment


ses

refer This egment

refer This egment


ses

ided is related to

cerns or Issu

dentified were

sidential Deverown Land; sway from my

go through wbe enough.

mments

nts below pve and negatiotal of 166 of

dents provideSome also pro

General Comm

ments about th

Manitoba Hydro


ry Mitigatio

d

ve

d

Also goesthe land. /creates lo

d

Segment potential e

Put it heresegment/

d

The line snear resid

o the St. Vital Tra

ues

e as follows:

elopment tay off private

y land.”

with this projec

provide a synive. Commenthe 442 respo

ed contact infovided letters.

ments questio

he engageme


on Approach

s through farm /Use Segment

ong term losses

208 would be effects to huma

e if you really hBest route. (2

should not follodents.

ansmission Comp

e property; do

ct at all. The c

nopsis of thents addressedondents did n

formation an.

on on the Co

nt process

MS

x

hes

land. This rout207; building o

s for the farme

preferable becans would be m

have to build thComments)

ow Segment 21

plex and is not as

on’t do the pro

compensation

e principal cd the PEP as not provide an

d wished to

mment Shee


te would devaluon farmland r. (2 Comment

cause the minimal.

his line. Like thi

0 as it is too

ssociated with th

oject.

n Manitobans

comments exwell as com

ny general co

be contacte

ets was sorted


TotRespo

ue

ts)

0

0

is 3

he MMTP Alterna

s might receiv

xpressed by mon concernmments.

ed about Man

d into the foll

roject ment Process

48

al nses

ative

ve will

POH ns and

nitoba

owing

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

C N M N R C R H

Many of th

Commentspecific A

3.3.2.13.1

Positive a

Seventee

Concerns

Responde

P Q La N Q

Negative

C

More info

In generainformatioSegments

No issues

Routing re

A number

T T A W

w P F


Concerns and Negative commMore informatiNo issues RecommendatCommon issueRouting preferHydro rates/pr

he comments

ts are groupeAlternative Ro

Theme1

about the enga

n (17) respon

s and recomm

ents had a wid

OH notificatioQuality of map

ack of cost esNumber of pubQualifications o

about the MM

Comments we

rmation desir

al, respondenon, such as s).

s (9 Comment

ecommendati

r of recomme

emporary siteowers withou

Avoid active faWhen going thwires to interfe

lace poles or ollow existing

M


recommendaments about ton desired

tions and prefes (general) ences and cooject costs

s overlap diffe

ed accordingute Segments

es and Notes

agement proc

ndents were p

mendations ab

de range of c

ons ps stimates blic engagemeof staff facilita

MTP process

re generally s

ed (20 Comm

nts wanted ma detailed

ts)

ions and prefe

ndations and

e for construcut guy-wires aarming operathrough farmlaere with heavy

towers on gog agricultural l

Manitoba Hydro


ations about tthe MMTP pro

ferences

oncerns

erent grouping

g to commons they are sum

cess (17 Com

pleased with i

bout the enga

concerns abou

ent events ating the mee

(7 Comments

summed up b

ments):

more frequenmap (showin

erences (16 C

preferences

ction materialsre preferred.

tions: go throuand/pasture lay machinery/covernment roaland where po


he engagemeocess

gs. See Appe

n themes, as mmarized in m

mments):

nformation lin

gement proce

ut the engage

etings

s):

by: “It doesn't

nt updates ong their prop

Comments):

were noted, a

s, if needed, i

ugh wetlandsand, fewer stacattle grazingad allowanceossible.

MS

x

ent process

endix C3 for d

noted belowmore detail.

nks provided,

ess (24 Comm

ement proces

matter what w

on progress perty in rela

as follows:

in La Broquer

or non-produanding tower. s, in the ditch


etailed comm

w. Where co

or had no co

ments):

ss, including:

we say.”

of the plannation to the

rie or Marcha

uctive land. rs would be p

hes.


ments.

omments dea

oncerns.

ning, or partAlternative R

nd. Buy Loca

preferable. No

roject ment Process

49

al with

ticular Route

al!

o guy-

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

M P

ae Lo

po Lo G Lo

3.3.2.13.2

Common

Groundwa

N

Property a

P R T P N C H

Aesthetics

A

Public Sa

H C C H U S A O W

Agricultur

A

Livestock

L L

Vegetatio

La L


Minimize line-oarallel agricuerial sprayingocate transmossible. ocation close

Go between Rocate east of

Comm2

issues identif

ater Resource

Negative effec

and Resident

roximity to hoResale/propert

he cost of onroperty sale.

Not able to buiConsider subdHeavily popula

s

Aesthetics.

fety and Hum

Health affects Children’s heaChildhood leukHumming noisUse of herbicid

pills and cleaAccess, theft, tOther hunters Well-being / de

ral Land Use

Agricultural lan

Operations

ivestock grazivestock healt

n and Wetlan

ady Slippers, ine maintenan

M


of-sight from rultural lands rg).

mission line as

to existing hiRicher and Ha

the RM of Ta

mon Issues (60

fied by respon

es

ct on water tab

ial Developm

ome. ty value. e property for

ild. division projecated areas.

man Health

(physical andlth in outdoor

kemia. e.

des. an up. trespassing. coming on ouestroying pea

nd and operat

zing. th and fencin

nds

large Pink Slnce and pote

Manitoba Hydro


residences. rather than h

s far as poss

igh voltage lindashville, dow

ache.

0 Comments)

ndents (all Co

bles.

ent

r pay outs, re

cts in process

d mental). r recreational

ur private propce and tranqu

tions.

g being broke

lippers, Pitchential for Cana


aving diagon

sible from res

ne. wn to Piney a

):

omment Shee

lative to other

.

activities.

perty. uility.

en.

er plants beinadian thistle.

MS

x

nals, to reduc

sidential area

and cross ove

ets) are group

r landowners

ng removed.


ce negatives

as. Use Crow

er at the Black

ped as follows

.


for farming (

wn Land whe

kberry Station

s:

roject ment Process

50

tilling,

enever

n.




Minimize forest removal; loss of forestry. Impact on woodlot.


Recreational traffic, trespassers.

Wildlife

Wildlife, rare or endangered species and potential electro magnetism effects on animals.

Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

Hunting.

Heritage Resources

Heritage land.

Other

Concentrations of power lines. Reduced cost of hydro for land owners. Bury the line. Eastern routes left out because of environmental and wildlife over people. Project is solely for power requirements of POLYMET Mining (nickel / copper) in Minnesota. Flooding of land at the (northern) dam site. Down-stream pollution to Hudson Bay. Disruption of First Nations’ rights to use the land for hunting or trapping.

Routing preferences and concerns:

Preferences (18):

Prefer Segment 201 over Segment 205. Upset that proposed route crosses very close to our house. There is vacant municipal land

directly east of our property on which you could route your line if you decide to use Segment 201. Prefer Segment 201, farther from property and recreation paths on Heatherdale Road, Prairie

Grove Rd, and Station Rd. Continue Segment 201 east to east of Vivian, south as shown on dotted line, east side St. Labre,

east side of Badger, east side Piney to Blackberry Station. Follow Segment 201 east and south to stay away from this area. Prefer 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, and 211. From a high level, Segments 201, 202 and 204 will affect least amount of people. Prefer you take another direction and stay away from our property. Follow Segment 205. This

property will be willed to my grandson who would be building a new home in the near future. OK with Segment 205: will come within 400-600 feet of their front window, closer to their house. Choose Segment 207 to avoid future expansion in the RM of La Broquerie. La Broquerie is a

growing RM and the installation of Hydro towers will negatively affect growth. My preference would be Segment 207, as it is further from large development and the major

population of the town and surrounding developments. Prefer Segment 207. Prefer Segment 207. We live half a mile from Segment 208. Segment 207 would be my preferred route.




Segment 207 is preferred as it will not affect agriculture and humans. I'm aware of the effect on animals but we have rights.

Segment 208 is a half mile northeast - will be treed in. Segment 211 is more favorable because it goes mostly through Crown Land, which is mostly

uninhabited. I like the idea overall. Good for exports and good environmentally. Our area does not have many

obstacles, especially with the Segment 211.

Concerns (28):

Prospective routes (Segments) 202 and 203 will greatly and negatively affect my family and our right to enjoy our residential property.

Located between Segments 202 and 203. Opposed to eastern portion of the triangle - why wasn't it introduced in the first Round? Concerns regarding future option to subdivide land for profit. Area is a low economic area. Concern regarding increased access. Neighbour was assaulted and died in a confrontation that was linked to an access-related issue related to swimming in ponds near his home. Concerned regarding unauthorized access on his land and transmission line related fires.

Located between Segment 202 and 203. Moved to the area for the wilderness. Concerned about the disturbance and creating increased access for ATVs. Has seen bears and wolves on his property.

Resident 1 mile from Segment 202. Proximity of Segment 202 to house - many negative effects if this were to go through. Why was Segment 203 added? It was not there last Round. People live in the bush to be private,

"let us be". Wild animals will be disturbed. Hunters will feel free to shoot. Dirt bikes, 4 wheelers will mess up everything. They already use Hydro lines for fun. This will just add more miles for them. We see it up the road from us. The more bush you opened up, the worse things happen. Leave our privacy intact!

Lorette Segment (205): concerned about tourism, view when driving on PTH #1. Rail on one side - rail and Hydro running side by side could cause trouble if an accident were to happen. Had flea beetles this year in a wet crop. If the poles and wire run along my side of PTH #1, I couldn't use aerial spraying. The attractiveness of my property might decrease, as well as value.

Segment 205 is too close and unappealing; have health and noise concerns. Use existing power lines although we were told that this could be a reliability issue. You can't put a price on health!

Just bought a house on Pine Ridge Road because of the peaceful and healthy environment. Concerned that the project could impacted our health, environment and cause depreciation of the property values in our area should Segment 205 be chosen.

Segment 205 is shown on my property line. The line is on land used for crops and livestock, would be very disruptive. Towers would interfere with aerial spraying, GPS and livestock pens.

Is Segment 205 to free up space for future lines east of Riel? Is Segment 205 politically motivated to avoid stirring the pot in an already impacted RM of

Springfield? Route (Segment) 205 is a poor choice due to the overlapping of Bipole III. It will become a cluster

of metals that will interfere with too many aspects affecting the public. Since Bipole III is already planned to wrap around our business location and affects numerous agricultural land areas, it would be wise to separate the two in order to give the public visual ease and less aggravation to work around or look at.

Our home, we do not want towers going through our property. We were told that Segment 205 was suggested due to the chance of a tornado would knock out all the lines. Tornados are a rare occurrence in Manitoba and the lines are only a few miles apart. Very weak reasoning! Residents should know cost estimates for both routes during this process.




Segments should run on land where there is little to no disturbance to animals, environment and homes. They should run where there is no land clearing needed. In order to do Segment 205, you will need to clear a lot of the land to build and maintain it, which will greatly affect the people, environment, and animals living there. Also, you will need to use pesticides to clear and maintain, which raises even more alarm bells in regards to health and environment concerns.

Do not run the line in Segments 205 and 208. Avoid the forest area as much as possible. It is not good for humans and animals. Run the line straight south from the west side of Winnipeg. Avoid Morris and run at a southeast angle, then run it along the USA and Canada border. I know you cannot avoid towns and cities. Is it possible to run the transmission line along already established routes by adding an extra line or two?

What is the problem with Alternative Route Segment 207 instead of 208, which has more people? Segment 207 will pass through bogs, presenting issues with summer access. Segment 208 would

pass along existing roads for ease of access. (40 acre property - 5 miles west of Segment 208) Concerns regarding potential effects of

transmission line on pacemaker. Indicated that they would be providing a letter from doctor. Have Tiger swallowtails, small blue butterflies on their untilled pastureland. They have also seen Sandhill cranes, wild turkey, deer, bear and coyote near/on their land. They offered their land for the study team to come and do a wildlife assessment.

Don't like Segment 208 because of health and safety issues, especially with large machinery on farms these days.

Not Segment 208, use Segment 207. Segment 208 should not be considered as a possible route. Against Segment 208. Would bring a "quad trail" (along the hydro line) right through a

farm/residential area. Segment 207 would join existing quad/snowmobile trails. Segment 208 also crosses the Seine River, tributaries.

Dairy Farm: main farm location, owns additional section. Alfalfa, corn. Approx. 2 miles east of Segment 208.

Why is Segment 208 so close to a populated area like La Broquerie when there is so much room farther east, away from valuable farm land and people. The health effects of EMF should be taken seriously and serious health effects (from international studies) should be made known.

Segment 208 would greatly affect me. I would lose half my evergreens, fish pond, value, aesthetics. Building my retirement home will be problematic. My lot will lose aesthetic and monetary value.

Segment 208 will affect most of my land. Extremely concerned about the buzz these lines will create.

Many concerns about Segment 208: houses, agriculture, health, noise that the line will make. Would prefer not having to see lines from my house. Concerned about future property value.

Segment 208 is too close to our house and will be a possible health risk and an eye sore. The line is not going to be on our property so we will not get any compensation, and we will have increased hydro rates to fund this project. There will also be a noise concern with the line being that close to our property.

Hydro rates/project cost (10 Comments)

Letter

Letter received with concerns about the Prairie Grove/TransCanada Route, versus following PTH #75.

3.3.3 Open House Mapping Stations

Mapping Stations obtained detailed map-oriented location information from the POH participants.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

IPad data

A C P G

3.3.3.1

The followSegments

In the MatransferrecoordinateinformatioRoute Seg

Alternativ

Route

Segment

200

200

201

201 201

201 201

202

202


a was sorted i

All Data Concerns

references General Inform

Summaries o

wing table ss and Valued

ap Station ded into either es (latitude on was cross-gment that wa

Tab

ve

t V


Livestock O

Total Segm


Aesthetics


Resource U

Existing/ MHydro Line

Total Segm



M


nto the follow

mation

of Concerns a

summarizes Components

ata base, anthe “Concer

and longitud-referenced was most appli

ble 3-12: Sum

VC

ety and alth

Operations ment 200

Residential ent

ety and alth

Use ultiple s

ment 201

Residential ent

ety and alth

Manitoba Hydro


wing categorie

and Preferenc

concerns fros.

ny items tharns” or “Prefee) were provwith Manitobaicable (genera

mmary of Co

Number

1 Hea

1 Line

2

4 Pro

Pro

Too

1 View

3 Hea

Nois

Con

1 Clea

2 Exis

11

19 Pro

New

Exis

Pro

Spli

Pro

Los

Wa

12 EM

Nois

Hea

Acc


es, organized

ces

om Mapping

t were italicierences” coluvided but noa Hydro’s Orially the close

ncerns from

D

avy truck traffic

e maintenance

perty value

ximity to reside

o many people

w

alth concerns

se

ntrol access to

aring and reten

sting line

perty value and

w development

sting level of de

ximity to reside

its property

ximity to town/

ss of lifestyle/us

nt horses on pr

F

se

alth concerns

cess and secur

MS

x

by Alternative

Stations, or

zed in the “umn if segmeo segment inientis Map Vist).

m POH Mappi

Detailed Conc

c on local roads

impacts on pa

ences

affected

quarry swimm

ntion of timber

d compensatio

t

evelopment

ence

/community (St

se of property -

roperty

rity – break-ins


e Route Segm

rganized by

“Site Commeent data wasndicated, theiewer to iden

ng Stations

cerns

s

asture

ing hole

on

t. Germaine) - hard to compe


ment number

Alternative R

ents” column mentioned.

en the geogrntify the Altern

Num

2

2

2

2

ensate 2

2

roject ment Process

54

:

Route

were If the

raphic native

mber

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

7

3

1

2

2

1

2

1

3

3

2

3




Alternative

Route


Traffic on PR 206 1

202 Aesthetics 2 View-shed/loss of privacy due to clearing 2


3 Train tracks 1

Future municipal yard 1

Adjacent to church 1

202 Wildlife 2 Wildlife values 1

Access by ATVs - hunters 1

202 Recreational Use 1 Snowmobiling 1

202 Atmospheric 2 Interference with electrical devices at home/with satellite TV, cell phone, internet

2

202 Resource Use 1 Unused quarry 1

202 Livestock Operation 1 Fence issues – cow pasture 1

202 Existing Multiple Lines 4 Existing line 4

202 General Concern 2 Concern 2

Total Segment 202 49


18 Property value and compensation 5

New development/ plans to subdivide 5

Density of development 2

Proximity to residence 2

Through front yard 1

Proximity to town/community (St. Germaine) 1

Loss of lifestyle/use of property - hard to compensate 1

Want horses on property 1


10 EMF 1

Noise 3

Family health concerns 2

Access and security – trespassing/ opening areas 2

Chemicals used in ROW cleaning 2

203 Aesthetics 3 View-shed/loss of privacy due to clearing 3

203 Agricultural Land Use 2 Avoid agricultural land/ Organic grain farm 2


1 Lady’s Slipper 1

203 Wildlife 2 Wildlife values/otter, deer, bear 2


1 Affects hunting 1

203 Fish and Fish Habitat 1 Fish Creek 1

203 Recreational Use 1 Snowmobiling 1

203 Atmospheric 2 Interference with satellite TV, cell phone, internet /radio

2

203 Existing Multiple Lines 4 Existing line



4 Too close to town, community (St. Genevieve) 1

Many residences 1

Land as investment for subdivision 1

Property values 1




Alternative

Route


204 Aesthetics 1 View-shed 1


4 Heavy traffic / potential for industrial accidents 2

Fire hazard 1

Noise 1

204 Atmospheric 1 Radio reception 1

204 Resource Use 1 Aggregate mining potential 1

204 Existing/Multiple Lines 2 Existing line 2



26 Proximity to residence 12

Property values 8

Future development/subdivisions 5

Purchased land to build residence – too small for agricultural use

1

205 Aesthetics 3 Aesthetics 3


20 Family health 8

EMF 8

Safety concerns with large machinery 2

Noise will scare horses/horses and dog 2

205 Agricultural Land Use 6 Splits fields - concern for row crops 1

Disruption to farming/lower yields 2

Aerial application 1

Irrigation on land 1

GPS use 1

205 Livestock Operations 7 Impact on livestock/cattle operations 5

Tingle voltage 1

Static charge on fence line 1

205 Resource Use 1 Harvesting existing trees 1

205 Wildlife 1 Wildlife 1


1 Activities passing under line 1


4 Airstrip/Parachute Training 3

Number of TransCanada Highway crossings 1

205 Zoning 1 Agricultural land 1

205 ROW 1 ROW width and maintenance 1

205 Cost 1 Cost and need for project 1



3 Proximity to residences 1

Subdivision 1

Lot values for resale 1


2 EMF 1

Health affects 1

206 Aesthetics 1 Clearing - views 1

206 Wildlife 1 Wildlife habitat 1




Alternative

Route



1 Impact on natural landscape 1


1 Used for hunting 1


1 Salmon Lake used as pickup by water bombers in fire season

1

206 General 1 Concern



3 Proximity to house 2

Resale value 1


1 Potential effects of lines on people 1


2 Sandilands ski trails 2


4 Fragmentation due to ATV access to remote areas 2

Rare orchids 2

207 Wildlife 2 Endangered birds – Great Grey Owl 1

Increase in hunting 1

207 Aesthetics 2 Sandilands Ridge – more visible/views 2

207 Agricultural Land Use 4 Aerial spraying 1

Dairy farm 1

Segments pasture 1

Weeds 1


2 Cemetery 2

207 Existing Hydro Line 1 Existing towers 1

207 Power Sales 1 Disagrees with power sales 1



42 Proximity to residence 11

Construction/proposed construction of house 5

Future subdivision plans 5

Too close to developing community/subdivisions (La Broquerie)

15

Decrease in property value/compensation 6

208 Aesthetics 2 Beautiful Quarter with family farm 1

Don’t want to see the line 1


2 Proximity to golf course – brings people from city 2

208 Wildlife 1 Moose in the area 1


1 Through Piney bog 1


19 Health affects 4

EMF 5

Noise 4

Safe distance from line /safety of children accessing ROW

6




Alternative

Route



8 Loss of farmland 1

Don’t want to work around the line 1

Aerial spraying 2

Easement value and potential use 2

Plans to clear farmland 1

Weed control by owner 1

208 Livestock Operations 15 Cattle farm /Pasture land 2

Dairy operation 4

Stray voltage and livestock 3

Health of cattle 1

Obstacles to manure spreading 5


5 Potentially active airstrip/Runway 2

Aerial applicator 1

Too close to school 1

Automotive business 1



3 View-shed 1

Noise 1

Snowmobile traffic 1


2 Concern about fire risk – homes near lake in overgrown bush

1

EMF 1

209 Groundwater Resources

2 Impacts Sandilands Aquifer –shallow aquifer 1

Dugout 1


1 Tree clearing in right-of-way 1

209 Fish and Fish Habitat 1 Horseshoe Lake - protected area 1

209 Wildlife 3 Concerned about increased predation along corridor 1

Increased hunting pressure 1

Impact of floating magnetic fields on small animals 1

209 Infrastructure and Servicing

2 Cemetery/Tombstones 2

209 Financial 1 Financial strain/Hydro rates – impact of power sales 1

209 Other 1 Coronal discharge 1



2 Close to house 1

Lots of people along segment 1


1 Health concerns 1


2 Proximity to area of recreational camping 1

Snowmobiling in bog 1


2 Stay away from Spur Wood WMA 1

Shelterbelt of over 1000 trees protecting 80 acres 1

210 Wildlife 2 A lot of wolves in area 1

Close to waterfowl management area in US 1




Alternative

Route



2 International Landing Strip/used for customs and emergency medical services

2


211 Wildlife 1 Elk have been seen in the area (8 years ago) 1


1 Cabin location 1

211 Cost 1 Construction in bog will be difficult 1

Total Segment 211 3

General Atmospheric 1 Interference with telephone service 1


2 Proximity to residence/Line directly over house/business

1

Property value 1


3 Health 1

Noise 1

EMF 1

Agricultural Land Use 1 Hog barns – want to know effect on cattle 1


1 Alignment is near Watson P Davidson WMA 1

Wildlife 1 Hunting and poaching - deer 1

Infrastructure and Servicing

2 Private airstrip 2

Costs 1 Costs and politics 1

Total General 18

Table 3-13 similarly identifies Mapping Station Preferences related to each of the Alternative Route Segments.

Table 3-13: Summary of Preferences from POH Mapping Stations

Alternative

Route



201 Agricultural Land Use 2 Less agricultural land – not interfere with aerial application

1

Rent from farmer – lease back 1


3 Less people affected/farther away 3


2 Parallel existing line 2


201 Alternative Alignment 1 Go along Floodway 1





Alternative

Route


202 Vegetation and Wetland

1 No clearing required


1 Prefer

Total Segment 202 2

203 N/A


1 Less populated area 1


2 Follow existing 230 kV line

Total Segment 204 3


2 Away from planned development/less people 2


2 Less clearing required/Closer to PTH #1 2

205 Alternative Routes 3 Eastern routes preferred 3

Total Segment 205 7



16 Fewer residences/no one lives there/less density 12

Away from town/by-passes La Broquerie and Marchand 2

Away from future subdivisions/not impede development 1

Makes more sense –stays off private land 1


4 Farther away for safety 1

Liability of collision is less 1

Creates fireguard – ability to get equipment in sooner 2

207 Agricultural Land Use 3 No farmland/less agriculture 3


5 Follow existing line 5




3 Less forest/land already disturbed/against deforestation 3


2 Less agriculture /pastureland 2


208 Cost 1 Fewer corners 1

Total Segment 208 9

209 Agricultural Land Use 1 Through bog not agricultural land 1

Total Segment 209 1


1 Trails closer to residence 1




Alternative

Route



1 Opens up hunting 1


1 Less disruptive of bog 1

210 Cost 2 More sense to be out of bog 2

Total Segment 210 5


1 Stays away from people 1

211 General 2 Prefer/makes more sense 2

Total Segment 211 3

Table 3-14 summarizes the Concerns and Preferences identified for the Alternative Routes at the Public Open House Map Stations.

Table 3-14: Alternative Route Segment Scores from POH Mapping Stations

Alternative

Route Segment

Total Concerns

(C)

Total Preferences (P)

Score = (P) – (C)

Notes/Interpretation

200 2 6 +4 General preferences

201 11 14 +3 General preferences. Route with second highest preference level.

202 49 2 -47 Property and health concerns

203 44 0 -44 Property and health concerns

204 13 3 -10

205 72 7 -65 Property and health concerns. Route with second highest level of concerns

206 11 4 -7

207 22 43 21 Avoiding private land and following existing Hydro line. Route with greatest preferences.

208 95 9 -86 Property and health concerns. Route with greatest number of concerns.

209 16 1 -15

210 11 5 -6

211 2 3 1

General 12 0 -12

TOTAL 360 97 -263

Note: “Comparative Rating" measures the number of preferences versus concerns for each Alternative Route Segment.

3.4 Landowner Information Forms

Landowner Information Forms (LIF) were made available during the Round 2 POHs and were completed by a number of participants at the June 18, 2014 POH in Ste. Anne. The following Table 3-15 summarizes data received for this POH only, with an emphasis on Alternative Route Segments in the Ste. Anne and Ste. Genevieve area. Twenty-one different entries were recorded on LIF. Some of the




information provided was indicated as applying to more than one Alternative Route Segment. A copy of the LIF along with a summary of comments is included in Appendix D.

Table 3-15: Summary of LIF Results

Alternative

Route


200 0


5 Future development 1


1 Access 1

201 Agricultural Land Use 2 Interference with farming 1

Difficulty spraying 1

201 Livestock Operations 1 Livestock 1

201 Bipole III 1 Ditches 1

Total Segment 201 5

202 Atmospheric Resources

1 Cellular service 1


7 Future development / Potential subdivision 4

Home location 1

Future use/ taking most useable part of land 1

Property value 1



7 Access ATVs 3

Health due to herbicide spraying /Leukemia 1

EMF 2

Noise 1

202 Livestock Operations 4 Livestock / Rents pasture/Gardens and pens 3

Animal health 1


1 Forest destruction 1

202 Wildlife 3 Corridors make game uneasy 1

Wildlife habitat/Deer, bear, turkey, cranes, woodpeckers and frogs

2

202 Resource Use 1 Mineral rights 1

202 Hydro Access 1 Damage 1

202 PEP 1 Perception - no say in process 1



1 Cellular service 1


2 Potential for development 1

Future use/ taking most useable part of land 1





Alternative

Route



7 Access ATVs /Security threat 3

Health /Leukemia 1

EMF 2

Noise 1

203 Livestock Operations 1 Rents pasture 1

203 Wildlife 2 Corridors make game uneasy 1

Wildlife habitat/Beaver, otter, mink 1


1 Hunting allowed with permission 1

203 Resource Use 2 Mineral rights 1

Gravel extraction: height of gravel stockpile 50 ft., and equipment movements

1

203 Existing Hydro Line 1 Two lines criss-cross property

Total Segment 203


4 Disrupts potential for development/Future subdivision 3

Property value 1



2 Access ATVs 2


1 Forest destruction 1

204 Wildlife 1 Wildlife habitat, deer, bear, birds and frogs 1

204 Agricultural Land Use 1 Organic farming 1

204 Alternative Energy 1 Alternative energy 1



1 Interfere with TV and internet signals 1


1 Water table concern - construction 1


11 Plans to build/subdivide 3

Disruption of current use 1

Development south of Prairie Grove/64 lots/too close to Dufresne

3

Too close to house 3

Property value 1



7 Access ATVs 2

Public safety/children playing 2

EMF 3

205 Agricultural Land Use 1 Cutting into agricultural land 1

205 Livestock Operations 2 Pasture/ Livestock 2


1 Trees beside line 1

205 Wildlife 1 No hunting sign 1




Alternative

Route


205 Resource Use 1 Woodlot – use wood for heat 1

205 Hydro Corridor Maintenance

1 Sprayers by poles/maintenance 1

205 Bipole III 1 Bipole 1

205 Cost 1 Cost 1

205 Other Land Use 1 Shop 1



4 Disrupts future use/Subdivision potential 2

Subdivision to south – compensation/loss of income 1

Close to house 1


1 Access ATVs 1

206 PEP 1 Desire registered letter 1

Total Segment 205 6

207 to 211 No comments

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

4.

4.1

Table 4-1March, 20

Many of informatiospecific A

Many of tinformatio

4.1.1 C

4.1.1.1

Inquiries ageneral pand email

M M G G

o o o o o

Rpr

E


Manitob

Summary o

indicates tha014 and Augu

the telephonon, although Alternative Ro

the emails reon requests, in

Table 4-1

Comments

General Com

and commentpublic are foul communicat

Map requests Meeting requeGeneral ProjecGeneral comm

Potential hPotential eProject comLocation oDeforestat

Regulatory prorocess, generngagement P

M


ba Hydro

of Round 2

at 215 emailsust, 2014.

ne calls recosome callersute Segments

eceived by Mncluding mee

: Email and T

Comment

Concern Preferenc

Site Spec

Recomme

General F

Map Requ

Project Inf

Totals

mments/Queri

ts obtained thnd in Append

tions included

(detailed mapsts. ct information

ments related thealth effects,effects on prompensation fo

of property in rtion and loss oocess for envral objection t

Process, inclu

Manitoba Hydro


o Email

PEP Email

s and 106 tel

orded by Mas expressed s.

Manitoba Hydetings.

Telephone C

t Type

e ific Data

endation Feedback uest formation Requ

ies

hrough email dix E. Gener

d:

ps for landow

n requests (pato: , including EMperty value dor landownersrelation to resof vegetation/

vironmental ato the project

uding methods


and Tel

and Teleph

ephone calls

anitoba Hydrstrong oppo

ro were relat

Calls Receive

Teleph

Calls

17

4

6

1

35

14

uests 29

106

and telephonral comments

ners and upd

amphlets, link

MF and mentaue to the losss. sidences. /biodiversity.ssessments, and alternativ

s of notificatio

MS

x

ephone

hone Contac

were receive

ro were requosition to the

ted to map r

ed by Manito

one

s Emai

38

5

0

8

23

46

95

6 215

ne communics and queries

dated data if a

ks on project w

al health chans of ability to s

including pubves to the proon and open h


e Line

cts

ed by Manito

uests for speproject or t

request follow

ba Hydro by

ils

5

cations with las placed thro

available).

website, etc.)

nges. subdivide pro

blic involvemoject. house locatio


ba Hydro bet

ecific projectto the locatio

w-ups or add

y Type

andowners anugh the telep

operty

ent througho

ons.

roject ment Process

65

tween

t/route ons of

itional

nd the phone

ut the

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

4.1.1.2

The follocommunicemails an

Segment also sumrecorded When munumber o

Table

Seg

men

t

200

201 ProResDev

201 PubHum

201 Aes

201 VegWe

201 Wil

201 Agr

201 InfrSer

201 Res

201 Gen

Tot

202 ProResDev

202 PubHum

202 Fish

202 VegWe

202 Wil


Location Spe

wing locationcations betwed calls receiv

specific commarizes the in email and

ultiple email f related resp

e 4-2: Summa

VC

operty & sidential velopment

blic Safety andman Health

sthetics

getation and etlands

dlife

ricultural Land

rastructure andrvices

source Use

neral

tal Segment 20

operty & sidential velopment

blic Safety andman Health

h and Fish Hab

getation and etlands

dlife

M


ecific Comme

n-specific coeen membersved from spec

ments receivnumber of p

d telephone cor telephone

ponses is inclu

ary of Site Sp

# o

f C

on

cern

s

0

3 1 3

ProxPlanProp

2 Hea

1 Aes

3 VegInvamain

2 San

Use

1 Gen

1

01 19

5 4

ProxProp

4 Heaimpa

bitat

2 Env

3 San

Manitoba Hydro


nts

omments wers of the publicific Stakehold

ed in emails preferences

communicatioe conversatiouded in brack

pecific ConcRecei

Con

ximity to residens approved foperty value

alth

thetics

getation/ asive thistle, rentenance

ndhill Crane nes

neral

ximity to Residperty value

alth/Emotional aact on family

vironmental deg

ndhill Cranes ne


re derived fic and Manitoder Groups a

and telephonand concernns, along witns were rela

kets.

cerns and Preved by Mani

cerns

ence r subdivision

lated to right-o

sting areas.

ence

and psychologi

gradation

esting area.

MS

x

from the recoba Hydro stre included in

ne calls are inns for each Ath the topics ated to the s

eferences (Etoba Hydro)

# o

f P

refe

ren

ces

0

2 P

1 H

1 Ae

f-way 1 Ve

1 Ag

2 In

2 Par

10

ical

1 SeprFi


cords of emataff. Note than the Appendi

ncluded in TaAlternative Rof Concerns

same topic fo

Email and Te

P

roperty and res

ealth

esthetics

egetation

gricultural Land

nfrastructure? N

referred route reas

eine-Rat Riverreference becaish Creek.


ail and telept summary loix C.

able 4-2. TheRoute Segmes and Prefereor a segmen

lephone Cal

references

sidential

d Use

Non-agricultura

in Lorette and

r Conservation ause of existing

roject ment Process

66

phone ogs of

e table ent as ences. nt, the

ls

al land uses?

Marchand

District g project on




Seg

men

t

VC

# o

f C

on

cern

s

Concerns

# o

f P

refe

ren

ces

Preferences


1 Big game hunting habitat loss

202 Resource Use 1 Wood


2 Non-agricultural land use

Total Segment 202 22 1


7 5

Property and residential developmentLoss of property value

1 Residence


4 1 1

Health/Emotional and psychological impact on family EMF Safety

203 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics


2 1

Seine-Rat River Conservation District Projects Environmental degradation

203 Wildlife 3 1

Bird species including Whip-poor-will and Sandhill Cranes. Project on private property coordinated with the efforts of Ducks Unlimited.


1 High water table in the area, artisan wells

203 Resource Use 1 1

Gravel pits in the area Resource

203 Agricultural Land Use 1 Agriculture



2 1

Property and Residential Development Property Values


2 Health


1 Wild plant species 1 Vegetation

204 Wildlife 1 Wildlife


1 Infrastructure and Services Non-Agricultural Land Use



11 6 1

Proximity to residential Property value RM of Tache Resolution No. 522-2014


4 1

Health Access to property in un-monitored areas

205 Vegetation and 1 Use of chemicals to clear the Right-




Seg

men

t

VC

# o

f C

on

cern

s

Concerns

# o

f P

refe

ren

ces

Preferences

Wetlands 2 of-Way Overall environmental concerns

205 Wildlife 2 Migratory bird routes, nesting and breeding sites.

205 Fish and Fish Habitat 2 Seine-Rat River Conservation District Retention Project

205 Agricultural Land Use 1 Land fragmentation, impact on agricultural land.


1 Recreation


1 Interference with existing data networks

205 Use Crown Land 1 Use Crown Land


206 Property & Residential Development:

2 1

Plan for three-phase subdivision provided, indicating that Phase 1 has already been completed Location of acreage

1 Prefer


1 EMF/Health


1 Vegetation


1 Non-Agricultural Land Use



1 RM of La Broquerie Resolution No. 172-2014, supporting Route Segment 207.


1 EMF

207 General 2 Preferred route/ Lorette and Marchand areas



1 2

Line runs through property Property value


1 Safety 1

208 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics



2 1

Property and residential developmentCompensation




Seg

men

t

VC

# o

f C

on

cern

s

Concerns

# o

f P

refe

ren

ces

Preferences


1 Safety (RM of Piney)

209 Agricultural Land Use 1 Agricultural


1 Walking/Hiking trails, canoe along the ridge during wet seasons.

209 Traditional Use 1 Collection of mushrooms and firewood

209 Resource Use 1 Mineral rights included in title for property.


1 Distance from airport, RM of Piney

209 Alternative Route 1 1

Routing recommendation Border crossing location



1 1

Large number of residences near segment (US resident) Proximity and compensation for the project


1 EMF

210 Aesthetics 1 Tower height and placement

210 Agricultural Land Use 1 Prime agricultural land near segment


2

International (Canada-US) Airport has plans to construct an east-west runway approximately 1.5 miles west of Highway 89. Plans confirmed by MN resident.

210 Wildlife 1 Near the largest Migratory Management Area in Minnesota.

210 Border Crossing 1 Border crossing location



1 1

Large number of residences near segment (US resident) Proximity and compensation for the project


1 EMF

Aesthetics 1 Tower height and placement

Agricultural Land Use 1 Prime agricultural land near segment


2

International (Canada-US) Airport has plans to construct an east-west runway approximately 1.5 miles west of Highway 89. Plans confirmed by Minnesota resident/Distance from airport




Seg

men

t

VC

# o

f C

on

cern

s

Concerns

# o

f P

refe

ren

ces

Preferences

211 Wildlife 1 Near the largest Migratory Management Area in Minnesota.

211 Border Crossing 1 Border crossing location


In addition to overall comments on route segments, project Stakeholder Groups and landowners were invited to share route re-alignments and route recommendations in areas they were aware of along the Alternative Route Segments. Table 4-3 includes a summary of recommendations regarding Alternative Route Segments received by Manitoba Hydro through the MMTP telephone and email contacts:

Table 4-3: Summary of Route Segment Recommendations (Email and Telephone)

Route Segment Source of

Recommendation Summary of Recommendation

N/A (Round 1 Routes)

RM of Reynolds Recommendation to use the alternative route segments presented during Round 1 through the RM of Reynolds. It was indicated that these segments would use Crown Land and could follow the existing 500 kV line for ease of access and maintenance.

202/203 RM of Tache Councillor

Follow two existing lines north of Mission Rd. to 29-10-8. At west side of sec. 29 begin a diagonal beginning through the SW corner of 29, the NE corner of 20 and come out at the ½ mile on the south edge of 16-10-8. Go straight south for 2 miles entering 33-9-8 at the ½ mile of its north boundary and exiting at its SE corner. Go SE for 2 ½ miles exiting from 25-9-8 at about the midway point of its southern boundary and then head south and slightly east to the SE corner of 1-9-8 (Map originally included).

201 Landowner Should follow Municipal land east of private property (NW 17-10-7-E1).

206/207/208/209/211 The Wildlife Society – Manitoba Chapter

Recommendation for avoidance of the following areas: Balsam Willows Proposed Ecological Reserve Boutang Area of Special Interest Earl’s Block Area of Special Interest Lone Sand Area of Special Interest Mensino Ridge Area of Special Interest Pocock Lake Ecological Reserve Somme Area of Special Interest Spur Woods Wildlife Management Area Watson P. Davidson Wildlife Management Area.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

4.1.1.3

The majoFigure 4-1commentsrecomme

As the mcreated. T

Consistentopics rel“Health” tSafety an

“Infrastrucrelated to


Summary of

ority of comm1 illustrates ts related tondations.

F

majority of reThe socio-eco

nt with summaated to “Protopics were sd Human Hea

cture and Sethe data cod

Socio-Eco69%

M


Telephone an

ments receivethe general do the over

igure 4-1: Em

sponses weronomic coding

ary of POH Coperty and Rsecond. Notealth” ranked f

ervices” was ing used in F

Route Pref2%

onomic%

Manitoba Hydro


nd Email Com

ed by email distribution ofrall project

mail and Tele

re related tog criteria and

Comment SheResidential Dee that in the first and “Prop

the fourth migure 4-1 is p

ferenceP


mmunication

and telephof comments wprocess, si

ephone Com

Socio-econoresults are ill

eets and Mapevelopment”, Table 3-4 “E

perty & Resid

most frequenprovided in Ch

Physical Environm1%

MS

x

ne were relawithin the teite specific

mmunications

omic topics, lustrated in Fi

p Stations, theand the clo

Evaluation ofential Develo

nt socio-econhapter 5.

ment

Aquatics1%

Wild2%V


ated to socion (10) codinsegment d

s – Topics

an additionaigure 4-2.

e most frequeosely related f Valued Comopment” ranke

nomic factor.

dlife%Vegetation

2%

TraditionaLand Use

0%

Enviro1

EA Proces11%

Engage


o-economic tg criteria use

data and ro

al breakdown

ent socio-econ“Property V

mponents”, “Ped second.

More inform

l

Heritage Resou0%

onment1%

ss

ement Process8%

Rec

roject ment Process

71

opics. ed for outing

n was

nomic Value”. Public

mation

urces

commendation3%




Figure 4-2: Socio-economic Topics from Email and Telephone Logs

4.1.2 Follow-up

Manitoba Hydro sent emails to individuals who had either signed in at the POH events, completed Comment Sheets or contacted Manitoba Hydro online. Figure 4.3 shows an example of the information email campaign delivered August 8, 2014.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

ses

Rel

ated

to

To

pic




Figure 4-3: Sample MMTP Email Notification




5. Environmental Assessment Data Coding

5.1 Methodology

AECOM established a methodology for recording Stakeholder Groups and public feedback and communications including Stakeholder Group Meetings, Comment Sheets (hardcopy and electronic), Mapping, and Landowner Information Forms, Website and mapping station data, Email and Telephone Communications and Website entries collected during the Round 2 PEP. The following section provides additional details for each of AECOM’s approach to processing and evaluating public feedback.

5.1.1 Received Files

All materials received from Stakeholder Groups, landowners and public participants were saved and recorded in a Master Database. The database was designed to accommodate a file naming structure, providing segment data and key information received, including Concerns and Preferences.

All data was entered into databases corresponding to the initial data sources, as follows:

Stakeholder Groups Meeting Minutes –PDF copies of all meeting minutes, as recorded by Manitoba Hydro staff.

POH Comment Sheets – hardcopies were stored electronically and entered into Manitoba Hydro’s online survey system

Website Online Responses – original copies of the online version of the Comment Sheets were stored electronically as part of Manitoba Hydro’s online survey database

Mapping Data – data originally collected in iPads at Public Open House events was downloaded into a Microsoft Excel file.

Landowner Information Form – hardcopies completed at POH events were entered into Microsoft InfoPath Database and responses were stored in Microsoft Excel file.

Email Correspondence – emails sent to the project email address were summarized and recorded in a Microsoft Excel database.

Telephone Correspondence – recorded by Manitoba Hydro from the project telephone line in a Microsoft Excel database.

All data was then added to the Primary Concerns Database, used to support this report. Figure 5-1: Process for Management of Public Feedback Data provides an overview of the process AECOM employed to manage public feedback received.

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

As noted also includconductedconsisten


in Figure 5-1:ded a data qud. A minimumcy and accura

Fig

M


: Process for uality and con

m of 25% of alacy.

gure 5-1: Pro

Manitoba Hydro


Managementntrol componel information

ocess for Ma


t of Public Feent to ensure received and

nagement of

MS

x

edback Datareviews were

d recorded in t

f Public Feed


, the database continuouslythe database

dback Data


e entry protocy being was reviewe

roject ment Process

75

col

ed for




All files received were saved electronically and assigned a specified naming convention (AECOM Index Number). The AECOM Index Numbers were generated to ensure all data was captured and easily accessible. The index number contained three primary components:

Round 2 Identifier File Type File #

This excluded online survey responses, each entry of which automatically received a unique “Survey ID”.

Index numbers assigned to Comment Sheets and LIF contained an additional identifier used to indicate the POH location where the original was received by Manitoba Hydro. The identifier was designed to ensure all responses could be identified based on the Open House venue or whether the information was received after the POH had ended. All files were numbered in sequential order as they were received /processed. Table 5-1 provides further explanation of the naming structure.

Table 5-1: AECOM Index Number Structure

Round # Identifier

File Type (Abbreviation)

File Number(0-999)

Open House Identifier (If Applicable)

Sample Naming

Structure R2 Email (E) 000-999 - R2-E###

R2 Phone Call (P) 000-999 - R2-P###

R2 Comment Sheets (C)

000-999

A – Received by mail after OHs S – Ste. Anne (April 15, 2014) S2 – Ste. Anne (June 18, 2014) R – Richer V – Vita P – Piney LB – La Broquerie D – Dugald M – Marchand LO – Lorette H – Headingley W – Winnipeg

R2-CS###A

R2 iPad (I) 000-999 - R2-I###

R2 Landowner Form (L)

000-999

A – Received by mail after OHs S – Ste. Anne (April 15, 2014) S2 – Ste. Anne (June 18, 2014) R – Richer V – Vita P – Piney LB – La Broquerie D – Dugald M – Marchand LO – Lorette H – Headingley W – Winnipeg

R2 Meeting Minutes (MM) 000-999 R2-MM###




5.1.2 Data Level Coding and Public Comments Database

All public feedback was coded for inclusion in the Public Comments Database (PCD). The PCD was designed to allow for analysis of feedback by source, comment type, Alternative Route Segment number and discipline level topic/ coding. Sources of feedback included in the PCD included POH Comment Sheets, online surveys, emails, and telephone and Stakeholder Group Meeting minutes.

Data entered into the PCD was linked to the AECOM Index Number assigned at time of receipt. The Index Number was applied to all feedback for that entry. In some cases one index number may have been repeated multiple times within the PCD because more than one comment was from the index number assigned. An example would be a Comment Sheet that was completed and had all sections containing information. For the purpose of the PCD, all sections of the Comment Sheet were entered and analyzed separately to ensure all feedback was collected and evaluated consistently.

When site specific data was provided (e.g. Legal Land Description) without reference to a segment, the site specific data was reviewed in a mapping program to identify the segment referenced in the comment.

Once all the data was collected and logged, each entry was given an identifier for comment type as shown in the table below.

Table 5-2: AECOM Comment Type Identifier

Comment Comment Type Description of Comment Types

C Concern Concern about any portion of the project. May be applied to any data and not always for segment specific feedback.

P Preference Applied to comments that indicated preference to a route segment, proposed component of the project or process. May be applied to any data and not always for segment specific feedback.

S Site Specific Any comments that contained detailed site specific data but did not indicate any preferences or concerns.

R Recommendation Related to comments which provided general recommendations for the Project, including avoidance or routing suggestions.

G General Comments The general comments category was used for any comment that did not readily fit into the other categories as defined. Topics may have included information not directly pertaining to the MMTP process or comments that were related to the overall engagement process.

M Map Request Any map requests for Manitoba Hydro to complete.

I Information Request (Project, meeting and general requests)

Follow-up items identified by the public/Stakeholder Groups that required further action by Manitoba Hydro.

5.1.3 Environmental Assessment Related Coding

Upon completion of the comment categorization, additional coding was applied to further relate all feedback to general Environmental Assessment (EA) areas. The EA areas were developed as an organizational tool related to the key EA disciplines. All feedback (entries) from meeting minutes, comment sheets and online surveys, iPads, emails, telephone conversations, were coded to the following Discipline Level Codes indicated in Table 5-3:




Table 5-3: Environmental Assessment Sub-categories for Data Coding

Sub-Categories for Coding

Physical Environment EA Process

Aquatics Engagement Process

Wildlife Socio-Economic

Vegetation Route Preference

Traditional Land Use Contact

Heritage Resources Other

Recommendation Not Applicable

Multiple codes were applied to entries as necessary due to the amount of overlap often seen between topics. Based on the high volume of responses categorized as “socio-economic”, the following additional sub-categories were generated to further filter the socio-economic data for evaluation.

Infrastructure and Services Employment and Economy Property and Residential Development Resource Use Non-Agricultural Land Use Agricultural Land Use Livestock Operations Health Aesthetics Safety Noise Property Value Recreation and Tourism Access

5.1.4 Description of General Coding Sub-categories

A number of codes related to the types of data being collected, if they were not specifically linked to Concerns and Preferences about the Alternative Routes.

Recommendation The Recommendation code refers to any route alignment/adjustment discussed in the entries along with tower placement. These Recommendations can be very specific to a particular Segment ID and be very general such as “follow existing infrastructure,” “use crown land/agricultural land,” and move the transmission lines further east or west. These comments were evaluated by Manitoba Hydro and recommendations were brought forward during route evaluation (See Section 6)

Environmental Assessment (EA) Process EA Process includes discussions regarding the EA Process such as project timing, transmission line routing and regulatory process. This also includes project methodology and/or any discussions regarding Community Development Initiatives (CDIs).

Engagement Process This includes entries discussing the “lack of communication,” and/or “not being consulted.” Engagement Process also includes discussions regarding open houses and the need for “more public consultation.”

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

Other: Coreference

Not Applicresponses“Disregard

Route PreWhen a pand/or ge

Contact When cosection/to

5.1.5

For the pPreferencperspectivEnvironm

5.1.5.1

The Natuenvironme

Physical condition comment the 208 ro

Aquatics: indicatingAquatics wanimals in

Wildlife: Treptiles. Awildlife mWildlife. Asome endon bird sp

Vegetatioand/or trerisk (i.e. woodlanddangerou


omments thatto other proje

cable: Comms. Examples d 200 prefere

eference preferred routneral (i.e. wo

ontact informownship/range

Concerns a

urpose of evces were furves considereent, Built Env

Natural Envir

ural Environment. Topics in

Environment:and thicknescoded to this

oute. How will

Aquatics incwetlands an

was: “The Enn it….”.

The Wildlife Also, if any e

management aAn example ofdangered birdpecies.”

n: Vegetationee removal. TLady Slipper

ds home to as structures a

M


t were not reects, map req

ments that coumay include e

ence”.

te is discusseuld prefer the

mation was pe, email addre

nd Preferen

valuation for Arther evaluated were devvironment and

ronment Cate

ment Categoncluded were

This includess) and grous topic was: “Il they be distu

cluded all fisnd/or bogs, wnglish River ru

code includeentries includareas, they wf a comment

d species as w

n includes anThis also inclurs). An exama plethora oand materials

Manitoba Hydro


elated to a prquests, etc.

uld not be apentries that o

ed in the entre route 1 Mile

provided for ess, phone nu

ces for Eval

Alternative Roted using a eloped based

d Social Envir

egory

ory is geneas follows:

ed the surrouundwater (i.eI am concernurbed/ruined/

sh and aquatwere also couns right by m

ed all comme species at

were also clacoded to Wild

well as great g

ny entries diudes conserva

mple of a vegof wildlife inc

to residentia


roject discipli

pplied to any only stated “no

ry it can eitheeast of curre

the individuumber, etc.

uation of Alt

oute Segmencategorizati

d on the EPronment.

rally related

unding terrain. aquifers, de

ned about the /effected by th

tic habitat (i.oded as Aquamy land, and th

ents that merisk (i.e. Sa

assified as Wdlife was: “Cogrey owl. Wor

scussing foreation districts

getation codecluding protecl homes.”

MS

x

ne or proces

of the other o” or incompl

er be very spent Segment I

ual, which m

ternative Ro

nts, all common under thRI-GTC meth

to commen

n (i.e. bogs, wepth, groundgroundwater

he transmissio

e. rivers, creatics. An exathere are fish,

entioned mamandhill Crane)Wildlife. Beekeoncerns abourried about tim

est/forestry, ws, wildlife maned comment cted fowl sp


ss, such as g

categories olete sentence

pecific to a SeD number).

may include

oute Segmen

ments definedhree broad hodology and

nts regarding

wetlands, etcdwater, etc.). r resources/wion line?”

eeks, lakes eample of a c, otters, mink,

mmals, birds), conservatioeepers were

ut birding. Genming of const

wooded areanagement areis: “The des

pecies. The


general comm

or were incomes/phrases su

egment ID nu

mailing add

nts

d as Concernperspectives.d included N

g the bioph

c.), soils (inclAn example

wetlands locat

etc.). Also, ecomment cod, beaver, and

s, amphibianson districts, aalso coded

neral area hotruction and im

as, wildlife haeas and specstruction of mclose proxim

roject ment Process

79

ments,

mplete uch as

umber

dress,

s and . The

Natural

hysical

luding e of a ted by

entries ded to d other

s and and/or under

ome to mpact

abitat, cies at mature mity of

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

Environmwas giveenvironme

5.1.5.2

The Built included w

Heritage heritage scemetery.coded as a heritage

Infrastructtelevisionand/or threferencethis topic

Property land/homedevelopmthis topic for more d

Non-Agricprotected topic was

AgriculturAgriculturHydro to areas.”

Livestock specific fvoltage, sOperationlivestock g

Traditionacommunitabout edib

Access: Tof-way accomment maintenan


ent: A code un. An exampental disruptio

Built Environ

Environmenwere as follow

Resources: Tsites, and/or c. Heritage RHeritage Res

e perspective.

ture and Ser, satellite, cele constructioto BiPole III w

was: “Concer

and Residente”, they were

ment either aswas: “New D

development.

cultural Land areas, fores

: “Prefer route

ral Land Useral Land Use. use the eas

Operations: farms animalstray voltagens. An exampgrazing under

al Land Use: ties. An examble wild plants

This coded acccess, trespathat was cod

nce and much

M


used for geneple of a comon.”

ment Catego

t Category isws:

The Heritagecentury farm. esources alssources is: “A.”

rvices: This l phone servi

on of the trawas also codrns about hea

tial Developme coded as P occurring rig

Development ”

Use: This isted area, woe 207 becaus

e: Farm landAn example terly route i.e

Livestock Os including d

e, health riskple of a comr power lines

This includedmple of a coms and use my

ccess to bothssing, constr

ded under acch of it follows

Manitoba Hydro


eral commentmment coded

ry

s generally r

Resources This also inc

so includes aA participant e

included anyices, etc. Anyansmission led as Infrastr

avy trucks and

ment: If entrieProperty and ght now or pla- New homes

ncluded any oodlots, and/ose it passes th

, farms, cropof a commene. 207. It has

perations incdairy farms

ks to farm anmment coded

and property

d any entriesmment coded y land for fora

private and ruction accescess is: “This the #1 highw


ts related to td to this top

related to ex

code includecludes “grave any entries dexpresses he

y personal sey discussions ines were coructure and Sd the quality o

es indicated “Residential Danned in the s are being d

discussions or cemeterieshrough crown

ps (including nt coded to Ags less interfe

cluded any dand hog openimals, and to Livestock

y re-sale.”

s related to Fto this topic w

aging.”

public lands. ss, and creati

segment alloway.”

MS

x

the environmpic was: “205

xisting infrastr

ed any entry site” in the e

discussing “ber preference

ervices provregarding ex

oded as InfrServices. An eof the road”.

“my property,Developmentfuture. An ex

developed and

regarding Cs. An examp

n land and will

berries), angricultural Lan

erence with a

iscussions reerations. Anybiosecurity w

k Operations

First Nations, was: “Re trad

Access incluing “easy accows for easier


ment and no s5 is a shorte

ructure and

discussing aevent the entryblessed ceme

for segment

ided to a hoxisting transmrastructure aexample of a

,” “private prot. This also inxample of a cd they are do

Crown land, cle of a comml make recrea

d pastures wnd Use was:

agricultural la

egarding “farmy discussionwere also cos is: “We are

Treaty landsditional land u

uded discussicess corridorr access to th


specific informer route and

land uses. T

archeological y does not di

etery.” A com208 over 207

ousehold inclmission lines/toand Servicescomment cod

operty” and/oncluded residcomment codoing some cle

conservation ment coded tational routes

were all code“I would prefe

and and resid

m animals” as regarding oded as Livee concerned

s and/or Aboruse: I have le

on regarding rs.” A samplehe line for rep

roject ment Process

80

mation d less

Topics

sites, scuss

mment 7 from

luding owers . Any ded to

or “my dential ded to earing

sites, to this s.”

ed as fer MB dential

and/or tingle

estock about

riginal earned

right-e of a pair or

AEECOM

Manitoba_Minneso

5.1.5.3

During theBuilt EnviEnvironm

Employmeincreasesin daily livto the propaying $3from us. capacity t

Resourcehunting/traincludes: we're tryin

Health: TpacemakeAn exampthe golf cEMF heal

Aestheticsvisually uincluded icomment power linewhere we

Safety: Sincluded pipeline rfires). An parcel. Sa

Noise: Noconstructihuman life

Property propertiesproperty vadjacent cHeavy tra

RecreatioATVs/snoareas. Anin the area


Social Enviro

e PEP, manyronment consent:

ent and Ecos, impacts to tving costs sucoject. A samp353 million foMy understa

to sell to other

e Use: Anyapping/fishing“Makes their

ng to save qu

This categorer/heart problple of a commcourse and valth effects are

s: This inclun-appealing, nfrastructure is: “It's farth

es, so there e frequently tra

afety includebreak-ins, va

ruptures and example of

afety concern

oise included on and maine. Health haz

Values: Anys, compensatvalues was: “church. Conc

affic along 206

on and Tourowmobiles/quan example of aa. Concerns a

M


onment Categ

y topics weresiderations in

onomy: Thisthe economy ch as an incrple of a commor additional "nding is thatr states.”

y discussiong were codedr land uselessuarry.”

ry included ems. It also i

ment coded asaluable farml

e a concern.”

ded discussiand providingaesthetics (i

her from our is less of anavel.”

ed discussionandalism, and

fires (both foa Safety codwith kids acc

the hummingtenance of thards. Constan

y discussionstion, and exp“Concerned wcern around p6 south, frequ

rism: Recreaads/cyclists, a comment coare related to

Manitoba Hydro


gory

e included un this category

code includas a result of

rease in livestment coded t"pipeline" in Mt there is not

n regarding d as Resources because of

any humanncluded genes Health is: “Tland. It will lo

ons regarding a sense of .e. tower typehome (healt

n impact visib

s regarding sd/or traffic acorest fires aned comment

cessing the R

g/buzzing noihe transmissiont buzzing no

s regarding dpropriation wwith existing lproperty valueuent accident.

ation and Togolf coursesoded for Rec

o increased ac


nder the Socioy, the followin

des any disf the project, tock feeding to this topic iMinnesota, wt a guarantee

mineral re Use. A samf the existing

n health diseral and/or emToo close to tower land val

ng property acomfort (i.e.

es, placementh concerns) bly to our are

safety on boccidents. It and providing

is: “Too closROW.”

ise of the traon lines. An

oises. Propert

depreciation were coded alevel of devee being nega Traffic levels

ourism includ, community reation and Tccess to remo

MS

x

o-economic Cng codes wer

scussions rethe total costcosts and emis: “I am not

which is more e that hydro

rights, quarrmple of the cog line. Going

scussions sumotional well-the village of lues, take aw

aesthetics supeace and q

nt, etc.). An eand eventua

ea and roads

th private lanalso included

a buffer alonse to a devel

nsmission linexample of aty value.”

of property as Property Velopment, trainatively affectes in general o

ded discussparks/sports

Tourism is: “Mote areas by A


Category. In re included as

garding Mant of the projecmployment op

thrilled that tthan they acwill be able

ry leases, omment codedthrough their

uch as EMF-being (i.e. strLa Broquerie

way valuable

uch as privacquiet, tranquilexample of anally joins withs (e.g. Trans-

nd and non-ppotential oil

ng transmissiloping comm

nes and noisea noise comm

values, re-sValues. A coin tracks, futued. Have livedon PTH #1 are

ions regardis areas, and Maintains crosATVs that dis


addition to res part of the S

nitoba Hydroct and/or increpportunities rethe ratepayerctually want te to use that

woodlots ad to Resourcer property bec

F, cancer aress, anxiety,

e. It is over hofarm land an

cy, “an eye ity, etc.). This

n Aesthetics ch currently-ex-Canada High

private landsand/or gas

ion lines for unity. 1.6 km

e generated dment is: “Impa

ale values oomment codeure municipal d here since e high.”

ng walking natural recre

ss country skisturb the land.

roject ment Process

81

elated Social

o rate eases elated rs are to buy

extra

and/or e Use cause

and/or etc.).

ouses, nd the

sore,” s also coded xisting hway)

. This spills, forest

m from

during act on

of the ed for l yard, 1973.

trails, eation

ki trails .”




5.2 Comparison of VC and EA Coding

The following Table 5.4 indicates the Categories and sub-categories used to organize data, particularly Concerns and Preferences, in both the Valued Components system referenced in the description of the Public Engagement Process in Section 2 to Section 4, and the EA Data Coding described above. The table also shows how different EA Sub-categories are organized relative to the three encompassing Natural, Built and Social Environment Categories.

Table 5-4: Comparison of EA Sub-categories and Valued Component Categories

EA Data Coding VC Categories Notes

Natural Environment Category

Atmospheric Resources Interference with radio, TV, cell services

Physical Environment

Surrounding terrain (i.e. bogs, wetlands, etc.)


Soils (i.e. condition, thickness, etc.) N/A

Groundwater (i.e. depth to groundwater, aquifers, etc.)

Groundwater Resources

Aquatics

Fish and fish habitat (i.e. river, creeks, lakes, etc.)

Fish and Fish Habitat *(Also listed under Physical Environment)

Wetlands* Vegetation and Wetlands

Wildlife

Mammals (i.e. deer, bear, elk, etc.) Wildlife

Birds Wildlife

Amphibians and reptiles Wildlife

Species at risk (i.e. Sandhill Crane) Wildlife

Conservation District Vegetation and Wetlands

Wildlife Management Area Vegetation and Wetlands

Beekeeper Agricultural Land Use

Vegetation

Forest/forestry Vegetation and Wetlands

Conservation District** Vegetation and Wetlands **(Also in Wildlife)

Wooded areas Vegetation and Wetlands

Wildlife Management Area** Vegetation and Wetlands **(Also in Wildlife) May be related to Property & Residential Development/Aesthetics

Tree removal Vegetation and Wetlands

Wildlife habitat Vegetation and Wetlands

Species at risk (i.e. Lady’s Slipper) Vegetation and Wetlands





Built Environment Category


First Nations Traditional Land Use Also picking mushrooms cutting wood etc.

Treaty lands Traditional Land Use

Aboriginal communities Traditional Land Use

Heritage Resources

Century farm Heritage Resources

Grave site Heritage Resources

Heritage site Heritage Resources

Archeological site Heritage Resources

Blessed cemetery Infrastructure and Services

Recommendation

Route alignment/adjustment Alternative Route or Route Alignment

Tower placement Aesthetics Typically a visual concern

Follow existing infrastructure Follow Existing Hydro Line

Move farther east or west Alternative Route Alignment Dealt with in other sections

Use Crown Land/agricultural land Crown Land

Process

Project timing N/A Information useful in improving the EA and engagement process but dealt with in other sections. Not part of VC identification.

Community Development Initiative (CDI) N/A These were not used in Data Coding for Concerns and Preferences

Transmission Line Routing N/A

Open Houses N/A

Regulatory process N/A

Methodology N/A

Engagement Process

Not consulted N/A Information useful in improving the PEP but dealt with in other sections. Not part of VC identification.

Open houses N/A These were not used in Data Coding for Concerns and Preferences

Lack of communication N/A

More public consultation N/A





Social Category


Personal services (i.e. TV, satellite, cell, etc.)

Atmospheric

Existing transmission lines/towers Property & Residential Development

Typically indicating impact on residential land use

Aerial spraying/crop dusters Agricultural Land Use

Construction of the transmission lines Existing Transmission Lines

Bipole III Existing Transmission Lines

Employment and Economy

Rate increase Other

Cost of the project Cost

Livestock feeding costs increase Agricultural Land Use

Property and Residential Development

“my property” Property & Residential Development

Private property Property & Residential Development

My land/home Property and Residential Development

Resource Use

Quarry Resource Use

Mineral rights Property & Residential Development

Typically related to property concerns

Hunting/trapping/fishing Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

Woodlot Resource Use

Non-Agricultural Land Use

Crown land Crown Land

Forested/Woodlot Vegetation and Wetlands

Cemetery*** Infrastructure and Services ***Not distinguished from other cemetery

Conservation sites Vegetation and Wetland Repeated in other categories

Protected Areas Vegetation and Wetland

Marginal land N/A


Farm land Agricultural Land Use

Farms Agricultural Land Use

Crop including berries Agricultural Land Use

Pasture Livestock Operations






Farm animals Livestock Operations

Specific farm animals (i.e. cattle, hogs, horses, etc.)


Dairy farm Livestock Operations

Tingle voltage Livestock Operations

Stray voltage Livestock Operations

Health risks to cattle Livestock Operations

Biosecurity Livestock Operations

Health

Human health (i.e. EMF, cancer, pacemaker/heart problems)


Well-being (i.e. stress) Public Safety and Human Health

Aesthetics

Privacy Aesthetics

Eye sore Aesthetics

Infrastructure aesthetics Aesthetics

Visually un-appealing Aesthetics

Sense of comfort (i.e. peace and quiet, peaceful, tranquil, etc.)

Aesthetics

Safety

Break ins Public Safety and Human Health

Fires including a buffer for fires Public Safety and Human Health

Vandalism Public Safety and Human Health

Traffic accidents Public Safety and Human Health

Spills (i.e. oil and gas) Public Safety and Human Health

Pipe line rupture Public Safety and Human Health

Noise

During construction and maintenance Public Safety and Human Health

Humming/bussing noise of transmission lines


Property Values

Compensation Property & Residential Development

Re-sale value Property & Residential Development

Expropriation Property & Residential Development

Depreciation Property & Residential Development






Golf course Recreation and Tourism

Walking trails Recreation and Tourism May also related to Public Safety and Human Health

ATVs/snowmobiles/quads/cyclists Recreation and Tourism May relate to Hunting, Trapping and Fishing, or Recreation and Tourism

Recreation routes/paths/trails Recreation and Tourism

Community park/sports area Recreation and Tourism

Natural recreation Recreation and Tourism

Access

Right-of-way Property & Residential Development

Trespassing Public Safety and Human Health

Creating easy access corridor Public Safety and Human Health May also relate to Recreation and Tourism, May also related to Public Safety and Human Health

Construction access Property & Residential Development




6. Summary of Results for Transmission Line Routing

6.1 Approach

Section 6 presents a summary of all the data from the PEP, in both written and graphic form, for each of the Alternative Route Segments. Data is grouped into Natural Environment, Built Environment and Social Categories. Data used for all EA summaries was the EA Sub-category information based on all PEP sources.

Figure 6-1 indicates the relative weighting of responses based on combined numbers of Concerns and Preferences in each general EA Data Category.

Figure 6-1: Relative Numbers of Responses in Each Data Category

The pie chart indicates the overall breakdown of responses in the Natural, Built and Social Environment Categories. Built and Social Environment Categories together total 82%, with Concerns and Preferences in the Natural Environment Category totalling only 18%.

Figure 6-2 provides an “at-a-glance” comparison of the 12 Alternative Route Segments by general EA Category. As shown in Figure 6-2:

Segments 205, 208, 203 and 202 have relatively high numbers of Concerns, while Segments 200 and 211 have fewer Concerns.

Segment 207 has a relatively high number of Preferences and few Concerns. Segments 211 and 201 have fairly balanced numbers of Concerns and Preferences and few to

moderate total Concerns overall.

Natural18%

Built52%

Social30%




Figure 6-2: Overall Summary of Concerns and Preferences by Alternative Route Segment

6.2 Natural Environment Category Routing Concerns and Preferences by Route

Segment

Figure 6-3 below provides the frequency of Concerns and Preferences for the Natural Environment Category and indicates that the highest numbers of Concerns in this category were related to Alternative Route Segments 203, 202 and 205. The highest numbers of Preferences were in Segments 208 and 205.

Note that the overall number of responses (Concerns and Preferences) for any Alternative Route Segment did not exceed 32, while the average number was less than 20.

0

50

100

150

200

250

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Number of Preferences or Concerns

Segment

SocialPreferencesBuiltPreferencesNaturalPreferencesSocialConcernsBuiltConcernsNaturalConcerns




Figure 6-3: Natural Environment Category - Frequency of Concerns and Preferences

6.3 Built Environment Category Concerns and Preferences by Route Segment

Figure 6-4 indicates the frequency of Concerns and Preferences for the Built Environment Category and indicates that the highest numbers of Concerns in this category were related to Alternative Route Segments 208, 205, 203 and 202. The highest numbers of Preferences for Built Environment were in Segments 207, 201 and 205, although the latter had between three and four times as many Concerns as Preferences overall. Segment 211 had very few responses but the number of Preferences was more than double the number of Concerns. Segment 201 also had considerably more Preferences than Concerns although few responses overall.

This Category had the highest overall number of responses for Concerns and Preferences combined, exceeding 140 responses for some Alternative Route Segments.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Number of Concerns or Preferences

Segment

Natural Concerns Natural Preferences




Figure 6-4: Built Environment Category - Frequency of Concerns and Preferences

6.4 Social Category Concerns and Preferences by Route Segment

Figure 6-5 indicates the frequency of Concerns and Preferences for the Social Category and indicates that the highest numbers of Concerns in this category were related to Alternative Route Segments 205, 203, 202 and 208. The highest number of Preferences for Social was in Segment 207. Segment 211 had very few responses but no Concerns. Segments 210 and 201 had only somewhat more Concerns than Preferences, although few responses overall.

This Category had a moderate level of responses for Concerns and Preferences combined, exceeding 80 responses for some Alternative Route Segments.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211


Segment

Built Concerns

Built Preferences




Figure 6-5: Social Environment Category - Frequency of Concerns and Preferences

6.5 Detailed Responses by Alternative Route Segment

Figure 6-6 provides a more detailed Stakeholder Groups and Public Feedback by General Categories for Alternative Route Segments Stakeholder Groups and Public Feedback by General Categories for Alternative Route Segments understanding of issues within the Natural, Built and Social Environment Categories. Socio-economic considerations were by far the most prevalent in the overall data set and included both Built Environment and Social Environment sub-categories.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211


Segment

Social Concerns Social Preferences




Figure 6-6: Stakeholder Groups and Public Feedback by General Categories for Alternative Route Segments

6.6 Socio-economic Responses by Alternative Route Segment

Figure 6-7 provides more detail on the components of Socio-economics data for each of the Alternative Route Segments.

Property and Residential Development considerations strongly outweighed all others in Segments 205, 208, 202, 203, 207 and 201, although it should be noted that this included both Concerns and Preferences. The same was true of Segments 206 and 204, although they had significantly fewer issues overall. Total Property and Residential Development considerations for Alternative Route Segment 205 totalled almost 120, for Segment 208 they were over 90, while for Segment 206 the total was 21.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Co

ded

Ro

ute

Fee

db

ack

(# o

f R

esp

on

ses)


Socio-Economic

Heritage Resources


Environment

Vegetation

Wildlife

Aquatics

PhysicalEnvironment

Manitoba_M

Cd

dS

iE

iR

tF

db

k

AECOM

Minnesota_Transmission_Project_

1

1

Co

ded

So

cio

-Eco

no

mic

Ro

ute

Fee

db

ack

(# o

f R

esp

on

ses)

Employment aAestheticsProperty ValueProperty and RLivestock Ope

M

_Summary_Of_Round_2_Public_E

0

20

40

60

80

00

20

200

nd Economy

eResidential Develrations

Engagement_Process_Septembe

Figure 6-7: So

201 202

opment

Manitoba Hydro

r2015.Docx

ocio-economic C

203 204

Resource UseSafetyRecreation anNon-AgricultuAccess

Considerations b

4 205

Alternative R

e

nd Tourismural Land Use

Manitoba-MinSummary of R

93

by Alternative Ro

206 207

Route Segment

nnesota Transmission PrRound 2 Public Engagem

oute

208 209

HealthNoiseInfrastructurAgricultural

roject ment Process

9 210

re and ServicesLand Use

211




Non-agricultural Land Uses was the most frequently mentioned consideration for Alternative Route Segment 209, and Infrastructure and Services for Segments 210, 211 and 200.

Agricultural Land Use considerations were substantial in Segments 208 and 205, and also in Segments 207, 202, 203 and 201.

6.7 VC and EA Sub-categories Comparison

Figure 3-1 on page 25, based on information obtained from POH Comment Sheets, provides another view of the PEP results. The following bar chart,

Figure 6-8, illustrates the frequency of Valued Components identified in Table 3-7 comparing Concerns and Preferences from Comment Sheets (Chapter 3).

Although there are differences in detail between these results and results based on the EA Data Sub-categories, the same overall patterns are evident when comparing the 12 Alternative Route Segments.

Figure 6-8: Comparison of Concerns and Preferences from Valued Components

Based on different overall numbers of responses, and a slightly different organization of data categories,

Figure 6-8, demonstrates the analysis of Valued Components from POH Comment Sheets alone, is generally consistent with the trends evident in Figure 6-2, Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7, which derive from overall Concerns and Preferences related to EA Sub-categories (Figure 6-2), as well as the frequency of information related to General Considerations (Figure 6-6), or only Socio-economic considerations (Figure 6-7).

In all cases, Alternative Route Segments 205, 203, 202 and 208 have the highest frequencies of Concerns, and highest overall numbers of responses for the data sets; although for the complete PEP data organized by EA Sub-categories the order provided would be slightly different than the VC analysis, as Segments 205, 208, 203 and 202. The VC analysis,

Figure 6-8 shows Segments 207and 201 with the highest total Preferences, with Segment 207 rating 5th in frequency of responses overall; this is also consistent with the EA Sub-categories data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

ses

Route Segment

Total Concerns Total Preferences




On the other hand, based on the VC data set, Preferences for Alternative Route Segments 201 and 205 show higher response rates than those for the EA Sub-categories data.




7. Summary of Results for Environmental Assessment Data

7.1 Summary by General Concerns versus Preferences

Public engagement feedback was coded based on Sub-categories identified for use in the environmental assessment process in meetings at the beginning of Round 2.

In this chapter, bar charts for the Alternative Route Segments indicate the proportion of responses falling into each of the Categories, by Concerns and Preferences. This provides an overview comparison of the issues for each of the segments. A more detailed bar chart showing the Alternative Route Segments provides additional information regarding the breakdown of socio-economic topics.

Figure 7-1 indicates the numbers of Concerns versus the numbers of Preferences for each of the Alternative Route Segments based on the Environmental Assessment Data Coding. This provides a quick overview to identify segments having the most Concerns, such as Segments 205 and 208; those with the least, such as Segments 211 and 200, and those having the most Preferences, such as Segments 207, or least, such as Segments 200 and 209.

Figure 7-1: Overview of Environmental assessment Sub-categories Concerns versus Preferences

0

50

100

150

200

250

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Concerns Preferences




7.2 Summary by EA Data Category

Figure 7-2 to Figure 7-4 indicate the results of data specific to Natural Environment, Built Environment, and Social Data Categories, respectively, for each of the Alternative Route Segments; while Figure 7-5 presents Combined Data for all of the Categories.

Note that the scaling of figures for various Categories is different: for example the Natural Environment Category has 25 as the maximum number of responses, while the Built Environment Category has 120, almost five times as many. The Social Environment Category scale shows 40 as the maximum number of responses. The concerns and preferences related to the built environment were therefore almost five times as important to Stakeholder Groups and public participants in the PEP as those related to the natural environment, and three times as important as the social environment.

7.2.1 Natural Environment Category Data

Data received, for both Concerns and Preferences in the Natural Environment Category is illustrated in Figure 7-2, below. Note again that this category received the least overall number of responses from Stakeholder Groups/ landowners, and members of the public.

The figure indicates that Wildlife considerations were of greatest interest for respondents for Alternative Route Segments 202 and 203, and also for Segments 208 and 205. Vegetation somewhat followed the results for Wildlife and was most frequently mentioned for Segments 203, 208, 207 and 202. The lowest numbers of responses in this Category were in Segments 200 (none), 206, 204 and 209. Aquatics were the least mentioned Natural Environment Category.

Figure 7-2: Natural Environment Category by Alternative Route Segment

7.2.2 Built Environment Category Data

The Built Environment Category had by far the largest overall response rate.

0

5

10

15

20

25

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Physical Environment Aquatics Wildlife Vegetation Environment




Property and Residential Development was by far the most frequent sub-category, and was very prominent for Alternative Route Segments 205, 208, 202 and 203, based on Concerns. As noted previously, Segment 207, also with a high number of responses was strongly preferential.

Agricultural considerations were second most frequently mentioned but the one with the highest number of responses was still less than half of the Property and Residential Development sub-category for the same Alternative Route Segment.

Figure 7-3: Built Environment Category by Alternative Route Segment

7.2.3 Social Environment Category

The Social Environment Category had a moderate response rate overall. Socio-economic considerations included health, safety and noise (grouped together as Public Safety and Human Health in the VC analysis), aesthetics and property values (which were grouped with Property and Residential Development in the VC analysis). Additional components were Employment and Economy, Resource Use, and Recreation and Tourism.

The two most important indicators were Health and Property Value, which made the Social Environment results very consistent with the results for the Built Environment Category. Alternative Route Segments 205, 203, 202 and 208 had the highest numbers of responses related to these indicators.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Traditional Land Use Heritage Resources

Infrastructure and Services Property and Residential Development

Non-Agricultural Land Use Agricultural Land Use

Livestock Operations Access




Segment 207 was highest for Recreation and Tourism; Segments 204 and 209 were highest for Employment and Economy.

Figure 7-4: Social Environment Category by Alternative Route Segment

7.3 Socio-Economic Data Sets

Socio-economic considerations, shown in Figure 7-5, combined many of the Sub-categories in the Built Environment and Social Environment Categories. They include the following (in order of frequency of responses):

Property and Residential Development Infrastructure and Services Property Value Health Agricultural Land Use Non-agricultural Land Use Aesthetics Access Recreation and Tourism Resource Use Livestock Operations Safety Employment and Economy Noise

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Employment and Economy Resource Use Health

Aesthetics Safety Noise

Property Value Recreation and Tourism




Figure 7-5: Frequency of Socio-economic Considerations for All Alternative Route Segments

Considerations related to Property and Residential Development significantly outweighed all other considerations at 706 comments. A distant second was Infrastructure and Services at 260 comments, fairly close to Property Value (also related to Property and Residential) at 233. Health had 207 comments and Safety, and Noise, 70 and 32 respectively. Agricultural Land Use had 161 comments. Considerations related to Non-agricultural Land Use are also somewhat related to property and urban development and were mentioned 150 times.

7.4 EA Data Sources

7.4.1 Profiles of Participants

Participants in Stakeholder Group Meetings and POH events, as well as individuals communicating through emails and telephone calls totalled over 1000 people, although some may have been double counted because they attended more than one event/activity (e.g. Meeting and Open House).

Newspaper advertising, newsletters and other advertising, as well as the Manitoba Hydro Website reached thousands more people to inform them about the project.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

SE Breakdown (All Comments)Infrastructure and Services Employment and Economy

Property and Residential Development Resource Use

Non-Agricultural Land Use Agricultural Land Use

Livestock Operations Health

Aesthetics Safety

Noise Property Value

Recreation and Tourism Access




8. Issues Identified

Table 8-1 summarizes key issues, concerns and feedback brought forward by the public and stakeholder groups during Round 2. Where sufficient information does not already exist in materials such as handouts for dissemination at Public Open Houses or on the Manitoba Hydro Website, information will be developed in Round 3 of the MMTP Environmental Assessment Process.




Table 8-1: Issues Identified

Item Key Issues from Round 2 Related Handouts and Resource

Materials (If Applicable)

Manitoba Hydro Response


1.1 Concerns about interference with radio, TV, internet and cellphone devices, and GPS.

AC Lines and Electronic Devices – Prepared by Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting, this provided information on EMF interference with electronic devices, including GPS, wireless internet and signal blocking/reflection.


Radio noise from an AC transmission line will not directly affect GPS receivers used for agricultural or other operations from receiving GPS signals or the satellite- or antenna- based correction signals.

1.2 Concerns about noise, dust and air quality issues related to construction of a new transmission line.

Line noise is typically perceived in close proximity to the towers. Manitoba Hydro seeks to avoid development in close proximity to residences where possible. Manitoba Hydro abides by guidelines set forth by the province related to noise. Construction operations follow best practices for mitigation of noise and dust. Construction traffic routes and any detours will be identified and made available to local police, fire and emergency services.


2.1 Concerns about aquifer pollution related to construction of towers and herbicide use.


Manitoba Hydro does not use herbicides for right-of-way clearing. For right-of-way maintenance, an Integrated Vegetation Management Program will be developed to reduce the amount of herbicide required.

3 Fish and Fish Habitat

3.1 Concerns about disruption from tower construction and pollution from herbicide use.


Vegetation buffer zones are established at watercourse crossing areas to protect fish habitats in riparian zones of streams and rivers. For right-of-way maintenance, an Integrated Vegetation Management Program will be developed to reduce the amount of herbicide required.







4 Wildlife (Birds, Mammals and Reptiles)

4.1

Reduction in habitat; disruption related to fragmentation of habitat, including potential impact on wildlife (birds, mammals and reptiles).

The Environmental Assessment process identifies potential sensitivities and has recommended appropriate mitigation measures for various species. Field studies conducted as part of the assessment, including private lands when permitted, are used to locate species and assess potential effects. Field studies included winter track surveys, trail cameras, elk breeding surveys and bear bait monitoring.


5.1 Impacts to riparian habitat from stream crossings.

Vegetation buffer zones are established at watercourse crossing areas to protect fish habitats in riparian zones of streams and rivers.

5.2 Potential impact on endangered plant species and natural areas.

Environmental characterization conducted as part of the environmental assessment process identifies potential environmental sensitivities and prescribes appropriate mitigation measures.

5.3

Transmission lines in proximity to Wildlife Management Areas, Ecological Reserves and Protected Areas, or proposed Reserves and Protected Areas


Manitoba Hydro has consulted with provincial agencies and NGOs such as Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative, Parks and Protected Areas and the Nature Conservancy regarding existing and proposed ecological reserves. Electric power transmission infrastructure is not permitted in WMAs or Protected Areas, and is recommended to be 1.6 kilometres (one mile) away from their boundaries. Transmission line routing has also minimized impacts to areas with identified rare species habitat.


6.1 Perceived health effects due electric and magnetic fields (EMF).

Electric and Magnetic Fields – It’s Your Health: Information brochure prepared by Health Canada which summarizes EMF and existing literature on the subject which supports Health Canada’s understanding of the topic. Alternating Current - Electric Magnetic Fields: Brochure created for Manitoba Hydro by epidemiologists and biological scientists to provide a summary response to common questions related to EMF exposure from AC transmission lines.

Informational sources, including Health Canada, the World Health Organization and other international health entities state that no scientific evidence suggests that exposure to EMF will cause any negative health effects on humans, vegetation and wild or domestic animals. Manitoba Hydro will design and maintain exposure levels from the transmission lines within the guidelines set forth by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection which have been adopted by the World Health Organization and Health Canada. Manitoba Hydro also retained experts in this field and has undertaken modeling and assisted in the development of material to assist in the assessment and to share information with the public regarding EMF.







7 Aesthetics

7.1 Aesthetics of towers.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Round 2 – Preferred Border Crossing and Refined Alternative Routes: This newsletter was prepared and distributed to all attendees of the Public Open Houses, and included the project timeline, tower design, a map of Alternative Routes and Preferred Border Crossing, and a summary of the general comments and concerns heard to date from Stakeholder Groups and the public.

Where new transmission lines are placed adjacent to existing line, Manitoba Hydro attempts to construct towers with similar spacing and heights when possible. Installation underground is cost prohibitive for high voltage lines and is therefore not a feasible option for the Project.


8.1

Proximity of transmission lines to cities, towns, villages and rural residential development, as well as agro-industrial development.

Locations of urban centres and rural residential areas are a major consideration in refining routes and avoided where possible.

8.2 Reduced property values due to transmission line development, including construction.

The Environmental Assessment has assessed potential for impact on property values. Current research suggests that property values will not be impacted by the presence of the transmission line. A Land Compensation Policy has been developed for land required for the transmission line right-of-way. The policy offers landowners 150 percent of the current market value for the easement and additional structure payments for agricultural lands.

8.3 Proximity to individual residences and farmsteads.


Throughout the Transmission Line Routing Process, transmission line corridors aim to avoid residences to the greatest extent possible. A voluntary buy-out policy has been developed for residences within 75m of the transmission line.


9.1 Use of Manitoba Hydro ROW for trails.

Manitoba Hydro will work with local authorities to manage access along the right-of-way once a final route has been approved and will work with landowners who wish to implement measures to limit access to the right-of-way.

To minimize the potential increase in access existing trails, roads and cut lines will be used as access routes whenever possible.







10 Agricultural Land Use

10.1 Loss of high quality farm land. Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project Landowner Compensation Information

To reduce the potential effects on agriculture, the preference is to align the route along the half-mile (quarter-section). Self-supporting towers with a smaller footprint are used in agricultural areas to lessen the effects to agriculture. Alignments along road rights-of-ways require offsets due to the height of the 500 kV towers and the requirement that the transmission line right-of-way cannot overlap the road right-of-way.

10.2 Impacts to farm equipment operation and manure application.

AC Lines and Electronic Devices


10.3 Transmission line rights-of-way become areas for growth of noxious weeds.


For right-of-way maintenance, an Integrated Vegetation Management Program will be developed.

10.4 Transmission lines interfere with aerial application.

Locations of airstrips were identified in the early planning phases and were avoided where possible in transmission line routing. Manitoba Hydro has been in discussions with the Manitoba Aerial Applicators Association regarding the Project.

11 Livestock Operations

11.1 Potential effect on livestock, particularly dairy cattle (tingle voltage).

Stray Voltage on Dairy Farms – Symptoms and Solutions– This reference document, prepared by Manitoba Hydro, included worksheets to assist landowners with determining stray voltage in their livestock operations.

Tingle voltage tends to occur with faulted distribution lines, as opposed to major transmission lines. Livestock operators are encouraged to contact Manitoba Hydro if they have noticed occurrences in order to allow for identification of the source.

11.2 Potential bio-security issues particularly related to construction in pasture lands.


Manitoba Hydro has an existing Agricultural Biosecurity Policy that creates standard operating procedures that assess potential biosecurity risks, considering factors such as soil conditions and time of year, and prescribes actions to manage potential risks. Manitoba Hydro employees and contractors working on private agricultural land are trained and aware of these procedures. The Policy indicates that if the affected livestock operator’s personal/corporate Policy is more stringent than Manitoba Hydro’s Policy, Manitoba Hydro will abide by their protocols.

12 Infrastructure and Services (Lagoons, Landfills)







12.1 Avoid landfills and lagoons, and cemeteries.

Locations of landfills, lagoon and cemeteries are noted. Structure placement generally tries to avoid crossing these features; however, there is sometimes a preference to route near these locations to minimize effects on farms and residences.

13 Traditional Land and Resource Use

13.1 Construction affects trapping activities due to disruption to fur bearing animals.

Environmental characterization conducted as part of the environmental assessment process identifies potential sensitivities related to fur bearing animals and prescribes appropriate mitigation measures, such as modifications to construction scheduling.

13.2 Potential effects of construction and operation of the MMTP on mining and aggregate extraction.

Locations of mines and aggregate sites were identified in the early planning phases and were avoided when possible during the Transmission Line Routing Process. Manitoba Hydro worked with Landowners and Stakeholder Groups to identify and understand concerns and potential mitigation measures (routing and compensation) for construction, operation and maintenance near mining and aggregate sites, where possible.`

14 Heritage Resources (Archaeology)

14.1 Avoidance of heritage sites, including Centennial Farms and areas used for the religious practices (Praznik).

Heritage resources, including archaeological resources, were identified during the Transmission Line Routing Process and were avoided where possible. As feedback was received, it was considered in decision-making processes.

15 Other Land Uses

15.1 Proximity to school and daycare sites (perceived health concerns).

Alternating Current – Electric and Magnetic Fields and Health Canada – Electric and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines and Electrical Appliances

Known locations of school and daycare sites were considered in the Transmission Line Routing Process.

Informational sources including Health Canada, the World Health Organization and other international health entities state that no scientific evidence suggests that exposure to EMF will cause any negative health effects on humans, vegetation and wild or domestic animals.

Manitoba Hydro will design and maintain exposure levels from the transmission lines within the guidelines set forth by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection which have been adopted by the World Health Organization and Health Canada.







16 Transmission Line Routing

16.1 Determining Alternative Routes.

Siting Transmission Lines Using the EPRI-GTC Siting Methodology – This pamphlet was provided to show the general methodology, which has been adapted and used in the MMTP project. Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Route Selection Process – This handout presented the methodology used in transmission line routing, including the criteria and progress of the project.

Once a border crossing was selected, the information gained during Round 1 from a variety of Stakeholder Groups, open houses and the environmental assessment process was used to help route planners to refine or eliminate existing routes and develop potential new route alternatives to the border crossing near Piney, MB. In some cases, the route segments that were considered in Round 1 were determined to effectively balance the three perspectives in routing (natural, built, engineering), and were retained. In some cases they did not and were eliminated. New segments and refinements to existing segments were added to provide alternatives that achieve the routing objective of connecting the start and end point of the project.

16.2 Where possible, locate transmission lines within existing Hydro transmission line corridors or existing linear corridors.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project – Route Selection Process

Part of the line is in an existing Hydro corridor known as the Southern Loop Transmission Corridor. There is also potential to parallel existing lines running east of the City of Winnipeg. For reliability reasons paralleling is not always possible or desirable.

16.3

Where possible, locate transmission line infrastructure adjacent to linear infrastructure such as Provincial and municipal highways, roads and drains in order to reduce land requirements.

Alignments with other linear features were identified as potential routing opportunities in the Transmission Line Routing Process and were taken advantage of where possible. In agricultural zones, a 500 kV transmission line must be placed in-field so to ensure the entire right-of-way width does not overlap any road rights-of-way, for reliability reasons. Therefore, a preferred option for many intensive agricultural areas is routing along the half-mile to reduce in-field presence of a transmission line.

16.4 Maintain straight transmission lines, with few angles.

Shorter and straighter lines typically suggest lower costs. There are extra costs associated with direction changes due to heavier tower construction to accommodate greater stresses. When possible angles are avoided during routing.




9. Round 2 Feedback and the Transmission Line Routing Process

Feedback varied for all segments, as summarized in Section 7. The segment identifiers assisted in understanding localized topics. Issues commonly discussed related to the segment identifiers are summarized in Table 9-1. Table 9-1: Summary of Feedback Considered in the Transmission Line Routing Process

Segment Summary of Feedback for Segment

200 Local residents indicated concerns regarding the southern loop transmission corridor, including proximity of the Project to developed areas near Headingley and south of St. Norbert. As well, concerns related to the Red River Floodway and the potential impact to flood protection were provided.

201 The area was generally viewed positively as it would parallel existing infrastructure. It was often preferred over Segment 205 as it was viewed to have fewer potential impacts on residential and commercial development.

202/203/204 These segments were viewed by local residents as being detrimental to the community of Ste. Genevieve and proposed residential expansion within the area. Access and property damage were concerns identified by residents in the area. As well, the local municipality indicated a concern regarding the municipal quarry that is important for the economy of the municipality

205 Concerns were raised regarding the number of times the segment crosses the highway, the crossing of Bipole III and the potential impacts to future development (residential and commercial) along this segment

206 The concerns raised regarding this segment were focused on the potential impact to a current residential development.

207 Segment 207 was noted as a preferred routing option by the public and the RM, as it paralleled an existing transmission line and was in less populated areas.

208 Residents and local government of La Broquerie viewed this segment negatively as they believed the segment would impact the community’s ability to expand and develop. A resolution was provided to the project team from the RM of La Broquerie stating that Segment 207 would have fewer effects on the residents of the municipality.

209 Concerns related to this segment were focused on the proximity to the Ridgeland cemetery, potential impact to bear bait site locations, and wildlife habitat.

210 Concerns received regarding this segment were focused on the Piney/Pine Creek airport and the potential interference with expansion plans and gliding paths for aircrafts.

211 Concerns raised regarding this segment were focused on the large intact bog along the Manitoba-Minnesota border and should be avoided due to wildlife concerns. Participants also noted that there may be concerns with the potential expansion or development of an east/west landing strip at the Piney/Pine Creek airport.

Information brought forward was utilized in developing the framework for evaluating public feedback in the Transmission Line Routing Process. The framework generally considered the following principles:

The overall number of concerns relating to each segment. The type of concern related to the segment.

Whether mitigation would lessen potential impacts of the concern.

Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

part 1 summary of round 2 public engagement process report · 2020-05-25 · Summary of Round 2...

Documents